User blog:Gundam Legilis/Jonathan Irons and the US Foreign Policy

Hello everybody!

I'm Arthur, aka Gundam Legilis. I don't do much on this wiki often, but I have been a fan of COD for at least 4 years now.

I wanted to talk to you about Jonathan Irons in Advanced Warfare.

Yes, he seems like an archetypal, vengeful power hungry, democracy hating, hypocritical dictator. But when it comes to the American Foreign policy, he hits home and is 100 percent correct.

Now, I have lived "close" to the United States and watched the news. And please don't flame me for being an "America-hater", it's just that I disagree with most of the stuff they have done overseas- I'm not talking about the cause- Al Qaeda and ISIS can burn in hell, but their methods and attitude.

American Foreign Policy Aftermaths
Irons points out that the modus operandi of the American Foreign Policy is to stir up trouble in foreign countries, flexing its muscles because it has a very strong military, sending fear to "every" country with threats of sanctions and violence, yet sitting back as they see fit.

The Drone program is one example. Recklessly bombarding targets, leading to the deaths of innocents and indiscriminately blowing up terrorists who are technically their own citizens who have gone rogue, without at first considering to imprison them in America under a fair trial. Yes, Ayman al-Zawahiri is an asshole, but it's better to put him behind bars rather than blow him up for good, as he's an American Citizen, and the other situation would lead to a more proper demonstration of justice under fair trial.

The enhanced interrogation techniques AKA torture, during the past decade under the Bush administration are another.

The CIA sanctioned the 1970s assassination of the democratically elected Allende, replacing him with the dictatorial Pinochet.

The NSA scandal is another, proof that even its own law-abiding citizens are on the hook. I can also allege the 1980s Afghanistan war, Operation Iraqi Freedom (invading sovereign countries and disabling the only thing stopping local terrorists at the time i.e. the Iraqi military not to mention gossiping about Iraq's alleged "chemical bombs") and the "relative" lack of action regarding Somalia post 1990s, Syria, and many other countries. This is because that while Afghanistan has minerals and rare earth elements, and Iraq has oilfields (at that moment, US decided to pick a fight when ISIS took them over), Syria and Somalia has nothing compared to them. If the did, the US would've solved all their problems long ago. This is all for resources, as implied by the 2010 movie Green Zone. Of course, this is a tad harder to prove than the previous points.

They also support other countries that perform atrocities, like Israel, run by the radical Benjamin Netanyhu, slaughtering Palestinians and playing the victim card, even though America knows full well what they did.

And for the love of God, before you even demand countries to stop making nukes, take larger steps to dismantle yours. Israel and Russia have some too.

Democracy vs. Totalitarian in 3rd World Nations
Enough talking of America. Let's talk about developing nations. As Irons points out in the "Reveal trailer" in May, these nations have infrastructure problems that democracy can't effectively solve. Like the lack of running potable water, indoor plumbing, and electricity in badly underdeveloped areas in some developing nations. India appears to be one of the few exceptions. Also, let's not forget the plenty of crooked democratic governments in Africa. They stick out more because while every government rides in a Rolls-Royce, those in Africa do it, despite their poorest citizens ending up as poster children for UNICEF. A more plausible solution would be for a strong, capable leader able to get things done, and actually make more of an effort to improve infrastructure, rather than having a bunch of inefficient buffoons bickering about "trivial" problems in developing nations. TL:DR Democracy is good once your infrastructure is properly developed, and everyone feels a lot safer. (E.g. After Libya rid itself of Gaddafi, it still struggles with car bombings and armed and dangerous militias, former allies in the revolution

Here's an example that has worked out so far: China. After the overthrow of the Chinese Empire, Sun-yat Sen thought that he could give democracy to China. It didn't work out because immediately after, there was the Chinese Civil War, with his supporting warlords fighting over territory and power like the Bloods and the Crips, WWII, where they fought the Japanese, and the decisive battle where the Kuomintang (Nationalists) fought the Communists and lost fair and square in a battle, retreating and founding present-day Taiwan. To this day, China remains a Communist country. But what's impressive is that under the span of 50 years, China has progressed from an agricultural society into a modern superpower rivaling the US, all under Communism. The first few decades was industrializing China, and the rest happened in the same decade as the Tianmen Square protests, where they singlehandedly increased industrialization and technological innovation capacities.

Eventually, it will be cool to see China take on a democratic process, but I want it under the conditions that the majority agrees, and that the infrastructure necessary to support China won't be downgraded as a result.

Well, that's my two cents on the matter.

Thoughts?

-Gundam Legilis

P.S. At first, I misjudged Kevin Spacey. Recently, he announced he wanted grandiose and magnificent roles. I was skeptical of him at first in a COD game given the flak the franchise received, especially with Ghosts. And I couldn't have been any more wrong thanks to his stunning performance as Jonathan Irons in AW.