EPTIraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
iMAniaC
Norway703 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 06 2012 17:44 iMAniaC wrote: Reports (albeit unconfirmed) say that Assad has started using helicopters in a new attack on Homs today. I find the timing of this somewhat interesting. Was that how Assad interpreted Russia's and China's veto? That he would have free reins against the rebels, using whatever means at his disposal? Is the escalation of power a direct consequence of the veto? I admit this is pure speculation, but to me at least, it certainly seems so. He took it for exactly what it was. The go-ahead to eradicate the opposition. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
They should have done the same thing as in Libya. It was an incredible succes. Based on what is it an incredible success because in my opinion it was a big failure. Remember how after Libya's war ended, evidence of western support to uprising from the beginning came on top? You sure we're not gonna see it in Sirya? Which could be nothing more than a foreign instrumented uprising. And in the name of justice, why didn't the west agree with Russia's draft which called for a stop in violence, cease fire for both authorities and opponents? The resolution russia vetoed only mentioned a cease fire and disarm on authorities and step down of Assad without a mention of the opponents. That is equal to regime change/coup. Russia's draft actually wanted to end the violences and get both sides over negotiations while the western resolution isn't against violence but against Assad. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
On February 06 2012 20:17 Pika Chu wrote: Based on what is it an incredible success because in my opinion it was a big failure. Remember how after Libya's war ended, evidence of western support to uprising from the beginning came on top? You sure we're not gonna see it in Sirya? Which could be nothing more than a foreign instrumented uprising. And in the name of justice, why didn't the west agree with Russia's draft which called for a stop in violence, cease fire for both authorities and opponents? The resolution russia vetoed only mentioned a cease fire and disarm on authorities and step down of Assad without a mention of the opponents. That is equal to regime change/coup. Russia's draft actually wanted to end the violences and get both sides over negotiations while the western resolution isn't against violence but against Assad. That just won't cut it anymore. Those murderers must be put to justice. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 06 2012 20:17 Pika Chu wrote: Based on what is it an incredible success because in my opinion it was a big failure. Remember how after Libya's war ended, evidence of western support to uprising from the beginning came on top? You sure we're not gonna see it in Sirya? Which could be nothing more than a foreign instrumented uprising. And in the name of justice, why didn't the west agree with Russia's draft which called for a stop in violence, cease fire for both authorities and opponents? The resolution russia vetoed only mentioned a cease fire and disarm on authorities and step down of Assad without a mention of the opponents. That is equal to regime change/coup. Russia's draft actually wanted to end the violences and get both sides over negotiations while the western resolution isn't against violence but against Assad. Because Russia's proposal said that Assad had to step down and give all power to his deputy. What do you think would change if all power went to his 2nd in command? That guy doesn't even have a different view on how the country should be run. A 2nd in command moved to 1st in command. Libya's war ended with evidence of western support to the uprising from the beginning? You must be the only person in the universe that has seen any of that evidence. I am so sick and tired of people ridiculing these people who are putting their lives on the line for things we take for granted. Pretending like they are all foreign agents or being manipulated and that in reality, most people love the fact that the secret service can drag you from your house and torture you at their leisure. These people want to be free. They want to be able to express their opinions and vote for the leaders they want. They are willing to put their lives on the line to put an end to this regime that has trampled over its own people. Of course any serious UN resolution is going to call for Assad to step down. He is a dictator who has murdered his own people by the thousands and should be grateful that he isn't on his knees in The Hague yet. Regime change is the goal, because the people want to get rid of this nazi-inspired abomination of a regime. If you think the UN is going to pass a resolution that re-affirms Assad's right to rule, you are completly detached from reality. The only UN failure that would be worse then this one would be one in which they pass a resolution that tells the people to essentially shut up and affirms that the Syrian government was right and should return to business as usual. People rose up because business as usual wasn't good enough. They refused to be treated as property of the state, to be executed at a whim if they dare to speak out against it. Don't pretend to be wearing the cloak of sovereignty or peace whilst advocating a veto that will result in thousands more being killed. We could have put a stop to the killing but Russia and China wanted to play politics. And you admire them for it. People come on here on a regular basis to bash the USA because it supports dictatorships, pretending as if they themselves are against dictatorships. When Russia and China do the same thing, they flip and sing their praise. Hypocrites and traitors. Not traitors to a nation but to the human race itself. A thousand years down the road when the last of these vile regimes gets cleaned from the earth, like the stain they are on it, people will read the history books and wonder how people could ever support these kind of vile regimes from the comfort of their internet connected homes. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Do you really think everyone in Syria is against Assad's regime? No one backs it? It would've been over long ago if such would be the case. It's very hard to quantify how many people are against Assad's regime and how many people actually back it but it's definitely not an overwhelming majority against. Let's pretend there is 60-70% against Assad and 30-40% backing him. So you have two groups fighting, who are we to judge and pick who should "win"? By the last resolution the western countries supporting it have done nothing but pick a side. Both groups are just as violent. Why not support the stop of violence on either side and put them down for talking? I never said Russia's any better than USA, they're both the same imperialistic nations that follow only their interests. Of course they are doing it mainly for their interests but at the same time i feel their approach is better. When people will be reading the history books they will also wonder why were people so war mongering and interfering in other's business. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 06 2012 22:02 Pika Chu wrote: Stop the killing? How? By killing people? In my opinion this is non sense and won't work. Stop the killing? That is impossible. Destroy the Syrian regime, a regime that has lost it's legitimacy when it began killing it's own citizens, the citizens that they were entrusted to protect. Totalitarian regimes the world over rely on bleeding hearts. Please don't attack us or we will kill thousands. Leave us be and we will torture and kill hundreds. Cutting out a tumor is painful, but you have to cut it out. Removing the Syrian regime isn't going to go without any bloodshed, but it's the right thing to do and will prevent many more casualties in the long run. Do you really think everyone in Syria is against Assad's regime? No one backs it? It would've been over long ago if such would be the case. It's very hard to quantify how many people are against Assad's regime and how many people actually back it but it's definitely not an overwhelming majority against. Let's pretend there is 60-70% against Assad and 30-40% backing him. So you have two groups fighting, who are we to judge and pick who should "win"? Only one side has the need to deploy gunships to win. I think that gives a pretty good estimate. The side that needs to use helicopters to kill civillians to maintain control doesn't tend to be the majority. And how do we decide? We don't. We abolish this illegitimate regime and install a democracy. Then the people decide their own destiny. It's about acknowledging that these people can make their own destiny. The problem is that we live in a modern world where a 1000 civillians can't do shit against 2 people in a gunship. By the last resolution the western countries supporting it have done nothing but pick a side. Yes, down with that a regime that kills its own people. I will gladly pick a side on that front. I tend to not pick sides with the group that brings hitler greetings and uses swastika's on their flag. Also, every country comes down for or against this vote, but only Russia has gone so far as to supply the Syrian regime with ammunition. I think that's a little more "picking sides." Both groups are just as violent. Why not support the stop of violence on either side and put them down for talking? This government has to go. It's been murdering it's own people. They are no longer legitimate. They are now criminals with a bigger supply of weapons then the opposition. As far as that the Syrian regime has not always been just that. I never said Russia's any better than USA, they're both the same imperialistic nations that follow only their interests. Of course they are doing it mainly for their interests but at the same time i feel their approach is better. Well, you be my guest and pick sides in which (by your own admission) imperialist nation you love the most. I will be over here with all the anti-dictatorship people. The people that feel that you can't execute your own citizens or play politics with the lives of millions. Nice to know btw, that you believe the Russian approach is "better." Brave to come out in support of providing a totalitarian regime with ammunition to fire on protesters. When people will be reading the history books they will also wonder why were people so war mongering and interfering in other's business. I hope not. It would be a dark future where we would still have these totalitarian regimes, and people like yourself who bow down to self admitted imperialist motivations and citizen hostage taking. These people are fighting for the right to govern their own destiny. You making light of their struggle on the sole premise that you dislike the US is disturbing enough. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On February 06 2012 08:26 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: Of course they lost Warsaw Pact without a fight. If the US were to collapse tomorrow and its GDP/economy drop exponentially for a decade along with tons of other problems, we'd lose all our 'allies' too. You underestimate how huge the collapse of the Soviet Union was. It's easily one of the most monumental events in modern history. That's why USSR/Russia lost their dominion over half of Europe and other areas. The country collapsed. . And they didn't just lose that stuff, the US came in to expand its own dominion to the Balkans (other than Greece) and much of eastern Europe. Fact of the matter is the continent is pretty much ours now. If anything, with Russia coming out of its terribly dystopian state a decade ago, its influence and power is gaining. Btw, if you want to know about Ukraine, they actually have bad history with Russia, but besides the crazy blonde woman who loves causing trouble, their relations are better than not. Btw, since Tito, Yugoslavia was actually rather defiantly independent of Soviet influence compared to other countries. Serbia still has strong relations with Russia, so I don't know why you say that in regards to them. I don't really disagree on the main point. Except that Russia's decline is still continuing, it only slowed down because of the commodity boom of the last decade. That's exactly the point: the reasons for the decline of Russia's are mostly intrinsic to Russia itself. The US supported and encouraged opposition groups in Georgia and Ukraine (and no doubt Syria) to bring down governments friendly to Moscow. They tried the same with less success in Central Asian republics. But relying on autocratic regimes was a weakness in the first place. The US didn't create these weaknesses, they just exploited them when they saw them. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Stop the killing? That is impossible. Destroy the Syrian regime, a regime that has lost it's legitimacy when it began killing it's own citizens, the citizens that they were entrusted to protect. Totalitarian regimes the world over rely on bleeding hearts. Please don't attack us or we will kill thousands. Leave us be and we will torture and kill hundreds. Cutting out a tumor is painful, but you have to cut it out. Removing the Syrian regime isn't going to go without any bloodshed, but it's the right thing to do and will prevent many more casualties in the long run. I think cutting the violence on both sides and starting negotiations could be a great start for a change. Any foreign action would worsen the situation long term. Only one side has the need to deploy gunships to win. I think that gives a pretty good estimate. The side that needs to use helicopters to kill civillians to maintain control doesn't tend to be the majority. And how do we decide? We don't. We abolish this illegitimate regime and install a democracy. Then the people decide their own destiny. It's about acknowledging that these people can make their own destiny. The problem is that we live in a modern world where a 1000 civillians can't do shit against 2 people in a gunship. Not exactly true, because the rebels now have access to arms and let's not forget some of the syrian army became defectors. So it's armed group vs armed group right now. Yes, down with that a regime that kills its own people. I will gladly pick a side on that front. I tend to not pick sides with the group that brings hitler greetings and uses swastika's on their flag. Also, every country comes down for or against this vote, but only Russia has gone so far as to supply the Syrian regime with ammunition. I think that's a little more "picking sides." I wouldn't pick a front. I don't think this can be solved through the use of more violence. I don't understand the part with hitler greetings and svastika (from what i know they don't have a svastika on their flag). Russia has been supplying Syria with weapons and ammo for a long time. If the weapons they are selling right now are used against protesters (which i doubt since i read they're only selling missiles and sort) then they must acknowledge the blood on their hands. This government has to go. It's been murdering it's own people. They are no longer legitimate. They are now criminals with a bigger supply of weapons then the opposition. As far as that the Syrian regime has not always been just that. I am against the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators and the ones responsible for the shed of blood should be brought before justice and have a fair trial. However things changed the moment their opponents grabbed weapons as well. Well, you be my guest and pick sides in which (by your own admission) imperialist nation you love the most. I will be over here with all the anti-dictatorship people. The people that feel that you can't execute your own citizens or play politics with the lives of millions. Nice to know btw, that you believe the Russian approach is "better." Brave to come out in support of providing a totalitarian regime with ammunition to fire on protesters. I just mentioned that i see no difference in Russia and USA. They are doing for their own reasons, both. I am against foreign intervention so i'll obviously prefer the russian stance. And they do not support the regime, they have asked for negotiations for changes. I'll tell you what i'm not for. I'm not for a fake democracy, i'm not for fake freedom in a sold-out country, i'm not for lies. I hope not. It would be a dark future where we would still have these totalitarian regimes, and people like yourself who bow down to self admitted imperialist motivations and citizen hostage taking. These people are fighting for the right to govern their own destiny. You making light of their struggle on the sole premise that you dislike the US is disturbing enough. Self admitted imperialist motivations? How's that? There's no citizen hostage taking and it's a matter of internal business imo. No, i support any movement to fight for their freedom and their ideals. I will not support a war and tearing a country apart for foreign interests. I don't dislike the US, i dislike imperialistic behavior be it russian or american. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 07 2012 00:41 Pika Chu wrote:I think cutting the violence on both sides and starting negotiations could be a great start for a change. Any foreign action would worsen the situation long term. First of all, how do you think they are going to be forced into negotiations without foreign intervention? Assad knows he can kill the entire country if he has to. He has more firepower. He doesn't need numbers. And what should they negotiate with? The Assad regime doesn't have a claim to the country anymore. They have been killing their own people by the thousands. They are enemies of the Syrian people. Why would the Syrian people negotiate with them? There can be no deal where these murderers are left in power. The best deal they can get is immunity from their crimes. As a pragmatist i can accept that. But anything more then that? No. You do not have the legitimacy to rule over a nation after killing it's people by the thousands. Not exactly true, because the rebels now have access to arms and let's not forget some of the syrian army became defectors. So it's armed group vs armed group right now. They are being killed by the thousands. Tanks are being driven at them. And you want them to go Ghandi mode? How would a people revolt against a regime that is insane? Like the Assad regime is or the Saddam regime was. How do you revolt against people that are willing to reject all morality to stay in power? So, ironicaly, it's the worst of the worst regimes that you feel should remain in power. I wouldn't pick a front. I don't think this can be solved through the use of more violence. Force can make it impossible for them to attack one another, so of course force can solve this. I don't understand the part with hitler greetings and svastika (from what i know they don't have a svastika on their flag). Russia has been supplying Syria with weapons and ammo for a long time. If the weapons they are selling right now are used against protesters (which i doubt since i read they're only selling missiles and sort) then they must acknowledge the blood on their hands. Russia recently had a boat by-pass the weapons embargo and supplied the Syrian regime with ammo. That is since they started killing their own people by the thousands. They aren't just using Russian weapons, they are using recently supplied Russian ammo. Russia didn't sell it to them before things got this bad, they sold it to them during this event. As for the Swastika: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Flag_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party.svg/600px-Flag_of_the_Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party.svg.png) The Syrian National Socialist party (Nazi is short for National Socialist or NSDAP, Nationalistische Socialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei) has well known roots in Nazism. These people are literally nazi's. It's not an insult, they don't even deny it themselves. I am against the use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators and the ones responsible for the shed of blood should be brought before justice and have a fair trial. However things changed the moment their opponents grabbed weapons as well. So any protest should roll over and get slaughtered? Violent revolution is completly justified against a totalitarian regime. These sick creatures will do anything to stay in power. The people need to be willing to defend themselves. Peacefull protest is nice, but you need to be dealing with a sane enemy. Martin Luther King could do a peacefull protest because the US government wasn't about to send tanks rolling over the protesters. The free press could do the rest of the work. Syria has locked itself off from the world. Peacefull protest is pointless because the regime will hide it from the outside world. There is no free media to report on the atrocities. I just mentioned that i see no difference in Russia and USA. They are doing for their own reasons, both. I am against foreign intervention so i'll obviously prefer the russian stance. And they do not support the regime, they have asked for negotiations for changes. Russia is allowing the Syrian regime to carry on. They do support the regime, don't be that naive. The only change they demanded is that Assad passes power to his 2nd in command. That's not change. The people can't go back to what they suffered before. They have been beaten enough. They don't want someone else to wield the stick, they don't want to be beaten with a stick anymore. I'll tell you what i'm not for. I'm not for a fake democracy, i'm not for fake freedom in a sold-out country, i'm not for lies. Who here is advocating fake democracy? Self admitted imperialist motivations? How's that? There's no citizen hostage taking and it's a matter of internal business imo. You said that Russia is just as imperialist. So you siding with them is you siding with a faction which you yourself admit is imperialist. The people are not literally being kept hostage. They are being kept hostage in the sense that the government threatens to kill more if there is an intervention. These regimes rely on people being afraid of even a single death. Like i said. They promise to murder a hundred, but if we intervene they will promise to kill thousands. We are not wrong for the murders that they commit. No, i support any movement to fight for their freedom and their ideals. I will not support a war and tearing a country apart for foreign interests. I don't dislike the US, i dislike imperialistic behavior be it russian or american. You support any movement to fight for their freedom and their ideals? Wake up. This is exactly that. If you don't support the Syrian people in their struggle then you only support people fighting for their freedom in paper. This is what it looks like when people take to the streets to fight for their freedom. You need to practice what you preach. You can't just say that you support people fighting for their own freedom. Any other uprising against a totalitarian regime will look just like this. If you react the same as you do now, then the truth is, you do not support people fighting for their own freedom. That is fine, you can have that opinion. I will disagree with you to the end, but don't pretend like you support people fighting for their freedom in the same post where you praise actions that are directly working against the Syrian people and their fight for freedom. Tyrants will go to extreme ends to cling to power. The people should not roll over. In these parts of the world where peacefull protest is impossible, you fight back. | ||
|
diplomatten
United States43 Posts
Let's pretend there is 60-70% against Assad and 30-40% backing him. Be very careful Pika Chu, this is the crux of your entire argument, and it has no factual backing. What you're implying is that the same number of Syrians support Assad as Americans support Obamacare (source). The American congressional approval rate is at 13% and hasn't been much higher than 25% in a long time (source). I would assume the approval rate of the Syrian regime is significantly lower than 30-40% if it caused an open, violent revolt (think about how bad an American or European leader would have to do to incite similar action). Look at how this argument changes if the numbers shift from 30-70 to 10-90. It is entirely possible that the vast majority of Syrians hate Assad and the smaller, upperclass contain his only supporters. An approximately $5,000 (USD) per capita GDP seems to support this theory (source). This alone is reason for Assad to step down and for the UN to condemn him. The violence is icing on the cake. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
Governments do not get to lay siege with tanks and artillery to cities within their own territory, especially when their opposition in the city involves what can only be a couple of hunderd guys armed with AK's. Doing so means you lose your legitimacy as a government and other nations should be calling for the guy blowing up civilians with tanks and mortars to step down. Sovereignty is not an excuse to do whatever the hell you want to your own population, as much as Russia and China want it to mean that. The actual percentages supporting/opposing do not matter. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
Secondly, someone said Libya was a success? Lol, there's now an Islamofascist regime whose first course of action was throwing out the entire legal system and replacing it with Sharia. A success indeed if one supports Islamic terrorists and extremist groups like AQIM and LIFG. Fortunately in Syria, Islamic radicals aren't as prevalent as in Libya or Iraqi Shi'a that worship the ayatollahs, so there's the legitimacy of the the rebellion is far greater, which I am happy about. I would assume the approval rate of the Syrian regime is significantly lower than 30-40% if it caused an open, violent revolt While I agree with you, don't think of Arabs in terms of complacent, meh-ish Americans. Like you said yourself, the US govt. has a consistently shitty approval rating, and yes I've heard many people who have even been screwed over in some way get extremely angry, but they do nothing because they're scared. The difference is that Arabs are generally feisty people of action and additionally really hate politicians/governments. If there's one person with any leadership abilities that organizes people's common beliefs, there will be problems. If religious fundamentalist opium and other "kool-aid" isn't forced on them like in the Islamist Gulf Arab countries to keep them stupid and complacent, they'll get extremely rowdy because if they don't agree with something (and they always have something they don't agree with), they'll fight it. Even if they lived in a Sir Thomas Moore Utopia, they'd be up in arms about something. They're just extremely independent-minded and on top of that are probably the world's most dedicated adherents of "actions speak louder than words", which is why issues like these are so common. Same shit's been going on in Iraq, and the govt. is brutally murdering peaceful protesters, arresting opposing politicians and media groups, etc. It's a good thing Iraq isn't at war with "Iraqis" like Shi'a supporting Iran or Kurdish nationalists killing their countrymen, or else there'd no doubt be genocide by the govt., and I don't mean killing a few tens of thousands of Kurds, most of them being insurgent deaths. Like with Syria, I can't blame the people for being angry (although not violent unlike their Syrian neighbors, yet..), seeing as they have another Hussein, but in addition who's not a hardliner against Islamism in a country with a growing Islamist presence, doesn't do shit to develop the country at a time when it's about 2 decades backwards from where it was 2 decades ago, fails so hard at rigging elections that he still loses and then nullifies the election (back in march 2010), and does almost nothing to protect minorities who are to this day facing persecution by Kurds and Islamist radicals (ie. there's no redeeming factors about al-maliki). Btw, the Bahraini people live generally well off, so it's not like being poor was the issue. Not to mention you forget the fact that developing countries tend to be poor. You also forget that 50% of the population is rural living on subsistence because that's the lifestyle they want and are completely non-factors in the economy. You additionally forget that Syria has had rapid population growth, which means there's a huge percentage of the population that isn't of working age. Syria is also a lot less capitalistic, than say, even Sweden, so a lot of things don't get measured into GDP. In any case, saying that this is the root of the problem is both misleading because of all the other conditions, and false because it was not at all the root of the problem with some of the other revolts that occurred. The revolt in Syria is a combination of the Arab mentality and a retarded govt. they're angry with as the primary reasons. Let's not forget the Bahraini king and Saudi soldiers took no hesitation to murder peaceful (not violent like in the Syrian case) protesters while a US fleet and contingent of marines stood by and did nothing, for the sole purpose because the Bahraini king is basically our pawn. If Assad was our pawn too, we'd be supporting his brutal crushing of the rebellion, no doubt about it. That's the way politics work, in terms of national interests and strategic expansion. It troubles me that many just don't understand politics comprises an inhuman amount of bullshitting. | ||
|
3Form
United Kingdom389 Posts
A war that has killed over a million Iraqis was a 'humanitarian intervention', the US army is a force for liberation, and the main threat to world peace is posed by Islam. Those are the arguments of a host of liberal commentators, ranging from Christopher Hitchens to Kanan Makiya, Michael Ignatieff, Paul Berman, and Bernard-Henri Levy. In this critical intervention, Richard Seymour unearths the history of liberal justifications for empire, showing how savage policies of conquest - including genocide and slavery - have been retailed as charitable missions. From the Cold War to the War on Terror, Seymour argues that the colonial tropes of 'civilization' and 'progress' still shape liberal pro-war discourse. and still conceal the same bloody realities. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On February 07 2012 07:22 3Form wrote: Zalz, calm down on the hyperbole and read this book: The Liberal Defence of Murder That's been the case since recorded political history. It's nothing new, and it's especially evident in more recent times since everything is a lot better documented and the "I am a holy crusader for freedom" is the current trend of bullshitting. It's called justification. Some people live in this fantasy world where governments they support are superhuman demigods incapable of anything wrong either in thought or action. Uhh no. They will try and justify their actions as having been good regardless. Of course, they will usually do questionable things when they can half-legitimize it, such as the turmoil in Libya. If we were to randomly invade Argentina, even the dumbest or most nationalistic of Americans would be scratching their heads, because there is absolutely nothing that can be twisted or turned to make a justification for that sort of thing. But if there was civil violence in Argentina and Argentina was in a zone of colossal strategic interest like Syria is and Argentina wasn't a US pawn, expect this hypothetical scenario to dominate the news headlines. And if war hawking were to pick up, expect the justification to be to "save the Argentine people". Yeah, like when we saved the Bahraini people when we had a military force 100x more powerful than the Bahraini military right in Bahrain.. oh, wait. It's not just in politics. It's simple human behavior and everyone has been guilty of it, and if someone hasn't, then they're either not human or suffer from the worst form of amnesia, which is why I find it particularly delusional when someone implies this doesn't happen in politics of all things. Of course a government will justify its actions as altruistic and holy and charitable, especially when a chaotic situation arises that makes the justification seem even a quarter-legitimate (ie. taking advantage of opportunities, anything anyone with half a brain in any field of work does, whether it is business or politics or increasing imperialistic power). Do people really think they're actually going to say things like "We want to expand our strategic interests and increase our power in a given region" ? Hell no. If people were that honest, we'd have no little need for court trials for criminals other than the bookkeeping and formalities if every criminal just straight up said "Yeah I robbed the store". | ||
|
iMAniaC
Norway703 Posts
If the Norwegian government started killing off its Sápmi population, or the US started killing off its Native American population, would that be a matter of "internal business", into which other countries shouldn't get involved? If the Netherlands invaded Belgium, should anyone get involved? After all, it's just a matter of "internal business" in the Benelux area. If the Soviet union, before it's fall, started killing off all the Estonians, should we have gotten involved? It would, at the time, just be the "internal business" of the Soviet Union. If Russia invaded Estonia the day after the fall of the Soviet union, should we have gotten involved? What changed during that one day? When the US fought the nazis in Europe during WW2, was that a correct decision? After all, France had become part of the Third Reich, and that the French didn't like it wasn't really more than the "internal business" of the Third Reich, or what? Or what if the population in the state of Texas decides to wipe out the population of the state of Nevada, should we get involved? That would, too, be the "internal business" of the USA. At last, in general, if there is one faction with lots of power, who oppresses and/or kills another faction, should we let the lines on a map determine our actions? The pain experienced by the oppressed is just the same, no matter where the lines on the map go. It's not the oppressed's fault that they were born into the area encircled by the lines, in which there's a bully with all the power on top. Personally, I think the lines on the map are unimportant and that we should care for others in pain, no matter where the lines go, and that we should strive to end the suffering regardless of whether it can be called the "internal business" of another country or not. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 08 2012 03:06 hypercube wrote: Maniac, you are misidentifying the main question. The interesting point is whether intervening would make things worse or better. Some are saying that based on the experience of Iraq, Afghanistan and a lesser extent Lybia, things could get much worse. How exactly could it get worse? I also like to know how Iraq could possibly get any worse then it was under Saddam. Even if it becomes a dictatorship again, it would still be a long way off from Saddam's Iraq. In Syria the government is firing on it's own people. I am not entirely sure how it can get much worse unless they improve their aim. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
If you can't answer that question yourself then you aren't looking at the situation objectively. | ||
| ||
