| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 06 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote: Iraq is the poster child of the fact that if you have a dictatorship, you can easily fuck up and make it worse by turning it into perpetual civil war instead. Or you just triggered the brewing civil war a decade ahead of schedule. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Flawless democracy dick-waving. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
On April 06 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote: Iraq is the poster child of the fact that if you have a dictatorship, you can easily fuck up and make it worse by turning it into perpetual civil war instead. No. It is the other side of the same coin. It is what you get when you decide democracy won't work for you. If you want a 'benevolent dictatorship', you have to go through cycles were you have complete fools or complete psychopaths in power. And when those become weak, they will lash out and destroy anything to stay in power. It is no coincidence that very uniquely insane people like Hussein or Gaddafi are able to grasp power. And even when otherwise seemingly rational people get to be dictator, be them Assad or Sisi, it can be as much a disaster. Even a 'normal' person born the son of a dictator doesn't really have a good shot at normality. Take Assad and Trump. Who is the reasonable one here? Now exchange them. Is the US better off? Is Syria off worse? And when you are a technocracy or something similar like China Singapore, you risk moving into 'benevolent dictatoship' waters. And once you are there, the next dictator may be a complete disaster. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14094 Posts
On April 06 2017 06:13 Wrath wrote: If you are talking about the WWI result and dividing the left over of Ottoman empire, then that implies on all the Arab world. It is true that in the middle east in general tribes loyalty was strong, but it was not sectarian that would result on killing on identity like it is now. After about 100 years of Ottoman empire fall, people started to have some loyalty to the nation they were born within. It is true that Saddam was a dictator, not defending that, if there was a revolt against him like the current one in Syria things would have been different. But what happened is that a nation that was "stable", no revolt or anything and suddenly it is under occupation for a never found WMDs until recently which makes it even more suspicious. The WMD's weren't found until recently they declassified their efforts to get rid of the chemical weapons that everyone knew they had. The Iraq invasion was about saddam having Nuclear weapons. Your history review completely ignores afganistan but hey why start credible now. The secterian killing was based on a religious war thats been going on from the start of islam. There were revolts against Saddam and he was ruthless enough to keep them down or use chemical weapons before they got out of hand like in Syria. Not to mention there wasn't the technology to inform other people about what was going on. Saying that there were no revolts is like saying there were ever good relations between native Americans and the new settlers in almost the entirety of the united states before they were all put onto reservations. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
I would like to say that Iraq was about oil. But even that wasn't true. Iraq was about delusion. Trump was right on Iraq (after he stopped supporting it, which he did initually). From Bush' point of view, if you go in, why not take the oil? They were too incompetent to do even that. They didn't take the oil. They didn't bring democracy (btw they didn't try or even desire that). All they did was give one half of Iraq to ISIS, the other to Iran. Why? Because they puppet government failed, and they lost control. That's all they did. Besides ruining the US economy with the financial burdens of that war, of course. | ||
|
lastpuritan
United States540 Posts
On April 05 2017 15:48 xM(Z wrote: the other side take on it: so, they shot a depo/its vicinity and it leaked chemical gases. It's a lie. An alternate theory peddled by Moscow is that Syrian rebels struck a nearby chemical weapons warehouse, inadvertently unleashing nerve agents that killed dozens and injured hundreds more. This allegation was swiftly knocked down by one British chemical weapons expert, Col. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, as “pretty fanciful” because immolating sarin eliminates sarin. Eliot Higgins, the founder of the open-source investigations website Bellingcat, told The Daily Beast, that such an explanation “would have to account for the first images from the attack being shared hours before the time the Russian Ministry of Defense provided as the bombing of the warehouse occurred. It would be absurd to claim the chemical attack was linked to a bombing that occurred hours later. “ source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/05/russia-gas-attack-victims-faked-it.html Apparently, Russia is trying to cover it up. Assad wants purified Syria, he'll try to kill all of the opposition and rebuild the country, that's a known plan. We'll see many incidents like this in the future, because his remaining officers are mentally ill sunni haters. On April 06 2017 09:06 Philoctetes wrote: The Iraq was surely wasn't about Hussein having nuclear weapons. I can't believe we are having this debate in 2017. I would like to say that Iraq was about oil. But even that wasn't true. Iraq was about delusion. Trump was right on Iraq (after he stopped supporting it, which he did initually). From Bush' point of view, if you go in, why not take the oil? They were too incompetent to do even that. They didn't take the oil. They didn't bring democracy (btw they didn't try or even desire that). All they did was give one half of Iraq to ISIS, the other to Iran. Why? Because they puppet government failed, and they lost control. That's all they did. Besides ruining the US economy with the financial burdens of that war, of course. Oh, do you think America couldn't estimate their failure? It's naive thinking. Installing a shiite regime was WRONG. They thought shiites are pro-west/pro-democracy like they think for YPG now. And gifting them Saddam knowing he'll be executed was another MISTAKE. Barzani will soon declare his independence and Russia will crush him, if Kurds in Syria try the same they'll be destroyed too. Why give them hope in the first place if you're gonna watch them die, half of the FSA has been destroyed by Russia already, and the other half sticks with Turkey, refusing to join SDF. If you're gonna lose all of these countries to your biggest rival at the end, why start a war you'd abandon? I'm seriously thinking it's the US army officials that cause all of these conflicts, they are somehow foolish/naive people that they keep sending inaccurate information to Pentagon and her policies bound to fail. Anyone have an idea why SDF haven't started Raqqa operation yet? Because the US is trying to convert PKK/YPG milita into proper army force to counter Assad forces after ISIS. Because no WAY they could arm those people afterwards. Bad times are coming. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2116 Posts
As with the Kurds, the Assyrians have a saying, "An arab can always be bought off with money, but the only thing that will satisfy a Kurd is a country". And between all this, minorities who have nothing to do with this stupid slaughter suffer. The best solution for Iraq is to split it into not 3, but 4 states. Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and a minority/christian state. Do that and the killing will stop... | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Partitioning nations into pieces should be done with care, if at all. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4379 Posts
On April 06 2017 05:53 Plansix wrote: Few people in this thread are defending the war in Iraq. The only thing they are opposing is the romanticized notion that dictators like Saddam and Assad provided more stability for the region. There was more stability with dictators in power in the Middle East and N Africa.This massive refugee problem didn't exist before dictators like Gadaffi, Hussein and Assad were either killed or undermined by the west in Assads case. People who live in the west are literally being taxed to pay for these wars and then taxed to pay for the massive influx of refugees caused by these wars.For their housing and welfare benefits.How is this sustainable? It's total lunacy. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On April 06 2017 17:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: There was more stability with dictators in power in the Middle East and N Africa.This massive refugee problem didn't exist before dictators like Gadaffi, Hussein and Assad were either killed or undermined by the west in Assads case. People who live in the west are literally being taxed to pay for these wars and then taxed to pay for the massive influx of refugees caused by these wars.For their housing and welfare benefits.How is this sustainable? It's total lunacy. Better to pay with money than with your life, many countries around the world have been paying with blood the adventures and caprices of the west. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
On April 06 2017 17:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: There was more stability with dictators in power in the Middle East and N Africa.This massive refugee problem didn't exist before dictators like Gadaffi, Hussein and Assad were either killed or undermined by the west in Assads case. There is instability in these countries right now because they had a dictator. This is backward thinking. A dictator creates grievances, and a desire for revenge. Dictators play the sectarian card. Dictators arm paramilitary units. List goes on and on and on. The crazier the dictator, the more chaotic the country when that dictator finally falls. And in a dictatorship, eventually you will get a really crazy, really weak one. That NATO, the US, Russia, Saudi or Iran make it worse by sending in even more weapons or by bombing, that's a secondary issue. BTW, many of these African refugees are relocating because their ancestral farming lands have become uninhabitable because of climate change. People who live in the west are literally being taxed to pay for these wars and then taxed to pay for the massive influx of refugees caused by these wars.For their housing and welfare benefits.How is this sustainable? It's total lunacy. These wars are western hobbies. People who are in the west helped create this mess. You bomb several countries for several years, and you are surprised it creates a stream of refugees? Yes, it is fucked up. Let's put Bush and Blair on trial, finally. BTW, where were you when I was protesting the Bush invasion of Iraq? Were you there in the streets with me? Also, Trump is about to meet with Sisi, and we also have this US alliance with Saudi, who are bombing Yemen. What if civil war breaks out in Egypt and Saudi? It is inevitable. If you want less civil wars in the middle east, it is very easy. Stop participating in them. Second, stop supporting dictators, as dictatorships cause civil wars. And stop selling arms. The more arms a country has, the more likely that country is to use them, either against another country or against it's own people/own minorities. And when a war breaks out, you do not bomb one side so that hopefully the other side wins. No. You block all arms sales and call for peace talks. And if Russia doesn't agree, there is nothing you can do. Russia will have it's own civil war eventually. Maybe after that, they will have learned. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
On April 06 2017 19:14 Philoctetes wrote: There is instability in these countries right now because they had a dictator. This is backward thinking. A dictator creates grievances, and a desire for revenge. Dictators play the sectarian card. Dictators arm paramilitary units. List goes on and on and on. The crazier the dictator, the more chaotic the country when that dictator finally falls. And in a dictatorship, eventually you will get a really crazy, really weak one. That NATO, the US, Russia, Saudi or Iran make it worse by sending in even more weapons or by bombing, that's a secondary issue. BTW, many of these African refugees are relocating because their ancestral farming lands have become uninhabitable because of climate change. These wars are western hobbies. People who are in the west helped create this mess. You bomb several countries for several years, and you are surprised it creates a stream of refugees? Yes, it is fucked up. Let's put Bush and Blair on trial, finally. BTW, where were you when I was protesting the Bush invasion of Iraq? Were you there in the streets with me? Also, Trump is about to meet with Sisi, and we also have this US alliance with Saudi, who are bombing Yemen. What if civil war breaks out in Egypt and Saudi? It is inevitable. If you want less civil wars in the middle east, it is very easy. Stop participating in them. Second, stop supporting dictators, as dictatorships cause civil wars. And stop selling arms. The more arms a country has, the more likely that country is to use them, either against another country or against it's own people/own minorities. And when a war breaks out, you do not bomb one side so that hopefully the other side wins. No. You block all arms sales and call for peace talks. And if Russia doesn't agree, there is nothing you can do. Russia will have it's own civil war eventually. Maybe after that, they will have learned. Dictators are far better then America forcefully bringing democracy. The west should respect other country's governing policy. Turkey right now you can't call a democracy either. Only through diplomacy and good will can a country's governing change for the better. The west doesn't want to make the middle east a better place for the people to live that's for sure... | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18199 Posts
Yes, in all these cases there were both strong internal and external incentives to transition to a democracy, and the resulting democracy is not always stable (Dilma Roussef's impeachment being the latest example), and there are of course plenty of examples to the contrary, but stating unequivocally that the death of Saddam Hussein (or his successor) would inevitably have led to civil war is far from clear. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
But no, judging from US rhetoric some serious shit does appear to be on the horizon, maybe. Depends who decides to do what. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
If you take out Assad's Air Force you have to take out Russian hardware as it all Russian hardware in the first place. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
Clem vs TriGGeR
Maru vs Creator
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
herO vs Solar
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
