Why are you guys in favour of violent revolution but unconditionally against foreign military...

Why are you guys in favour of violent revolution but unconditionally against foreign military intervention/neoconservativism? Genuinely interested.

because one is a radical change within the system towards socialism and the other only serves a reactionary agenda

I'm not even sure what contradiction you think you've spotted there, but you didn't and you're stupid

What do you mean by reactionary agenda?

If there's a brutal regime genociding its people then why is it wrong for western nations to intervene militarily?

It's not wrong it's just going to end up with the western nation to move in and super exploit the population as always. It won't due anything to really change the exploitation and subjugation of those people. If it's an active genocide they can be part of a UN coalition and intervene solely to stop the genocide then leave but that doesn't happen does it?

My question was to do with the fact that if you concede violence is sometimes necessary domestically then why is it not sometimes necessary abroad?

(I'm basing this on the assumption that people here are against all foreign intervention, which I'm in turn basing on socialist types like Corbyn and Stop the War who have voted against any and all intervention. There was no intended 'gotcha')

you're implying that foreign intervention always leads to less repression and violence in the countries that are occupied.

Name a single regime that after being bombed and deposed had their host country become a better place instead of a terrorist filled wasteland

Nope not at all. In fact I considered putting something like "I'm not talking specifically about Iraq" in the OP.

What necessity is there for the wars going on in the middle east for the last 15 years?

I really have no idea. I'm talking more about the principle of military intervention than its practical precedence. Do you oppose any and all foreign intervention *on principle*? If so, I'm interested to know why.

What is the consensus on Kosovo and Bosnia?

see . I'm asking about the principle of intervening abroad – do you oppose it absolutely? As an aside, under what circumstances would violent socialist revolution be necessary to you?

(also I don't think I mean Bosnia, I'm thinking of somewhere else, got muddled up)

Ah yes the non-country filled with druglords and shootings.
There's a reason all of the drug trafficking here is done by Albanians either from Kosovo or Albania.

I don't entertain zero sum philosophicals like this, war has repercussions, destabilizing nations has repercussions, for every war against Nazis there's 20 wars against communists or foreign governments that don't play nice with the west and as such get squashed

When has that been the case exactly? Do you think that all of the instances in which the Western powers have engaged in intervention or regime change was due to humanitarian concerns? Or was it due to said dictators not cooperating with the west, or worse still, dealing with the Soviets?

You should be able to solve this.

Woops, forgot my shitposting flag.


second. There is no need to deal in absolutes.

This was why I aimed the question at people who support domestic revolution, which itself has huge consequences, namely those who get caught in the crossfire in the same way thousands of Iraqis did.


Oh I have no doubt that plenty of wars are waged over impure, underhanded reasons.

absolutely? no, even Gnome Chomsky said that some interventions, like Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, can be justified.
Mostly i agree with war should be viewed as wrong until proven otherwise

Ah that's fair. I probably agree. I guess my initial assumption was based on a false premise (that all lefties round these parts are unflinchingly opposed to all intervention, bar none).

In principle, violent bloodshed may be necessary, but it's never not tragic.

The west doesn't give a rats ass about those people. They intervene under the guise of "helping" because there's monetary, or otherwise, gains to be had. Anybody who actually believes that the west is intervening because they "care" about those people, is fucking naive.

Except a revolution and a war are two entirely different things, a revolution is the people against a status quo and a war is 2 nations fighting each other, they use the same weapons and tactics usually but they are apples and oranges in comparison otherwise.

and if the outcome is good (i.e. stability and prosperity) then does it matter what the motivation was? Speaking hypothetically, that is.