Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by boomboomsubban 2180 days ago
>but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

How has Iraq benefited? What benefit do the people of Saudi Arabia see from our relationship? How many of the US led South American regime changes have benefitted the populace?

>It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.

We sell them out constantly. None of those "partners" have other options. Working against the US means most of the world refusing to interact with you, or a regime change on the horizon.

1 comments

Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis. SA spends big on defence, but they’re hopelessly inexperienced, while Iran has plenty of military experience from the wars with a Iraq and operations in Syria. They may look under equipped on paper, but they’d eat SA for breakfast in an actual conflict.

America’s efforts at regime change in the America’s are an appalling catalogue of screwups and bloody disasters. No argument there.

But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it. We’ve had setbacks like Ukraine, but boy it could have been a _lot_ worse. Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan have benefited hugely. Even Vietnam is now becoming a regional ally.

>Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting.

ISIS exists because of US action, they are not benefitting from this.

>Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait.

Not only is this just untrue, Saddam Hussein discussed the invasion of Kuwait with the US before the invasion, our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia stemming from that event has caused numerous problems for the people of the country.

>Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis

Though I'm not sure how the citizens of Saudi Arabia are benefitting from this in your version of events, the Saudi troops should be well trained from their ongoing war in Yemen.

>But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it

On the other hand, NATO encroachment could be blamed for much of Russia's aggression. Crimea lasted twenty years under Ukrainian control after all, but would NATO continue letting Russia access it's Black Sea port?