So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[Sava]

I'm honestly baffled at how you and your brothers made it into college

[regexcellent]

The US has propped up the house of Saud for half a century you idiot by supplying the military hardware and political cover that allows them to continue to keep their people oppressed while furthering US interests. How exactly do you think it makes Saudi people feel seeing the king and princes living lives of unimaginable luxury while they live in squalor, with the status quo preserved by US backing?

Coming from a nation that spends so much time lecturing the world about human rights and freedom the hypocricy is beyond measure.

Bin Laden didn't want Saudi Arabian people to be less oppressed, and the hijackers didn't come from the sweltering lower classes or whatever.

[kentonio]

Bin Laden didn't want Saudi Arabian people to be less oppressed, and the hijackers didn't come from the sweltering lower classes or whatever.

It's not about what you define as oppressed, its about who is doing the oppressing. If you're a fundamentalist muslim then the idea of a small group of nobles living in unimaginable luxury and doing the bidding of the west while other muslims suffer is absolute anathema.

[Sava]

Do you really think Saudi Arabia is or has ever been one of our client states? The extent of our relationship pre-9/11 was us providing them with weapons and training as a regional counterbalance to Iraq and Iran, and before that to keep it from going to the Soviet camp. But we've never tried to make them not be ****stained ****heads who treat women like property.

The idea that 9/11 was an attempt to get us not to interfere in the internal politics of Saudi Arabia is retarded because we'd kept a pretty hands-off approach in that regard and if that was their intention, they failed miserably since we now have closer ties with Saudi Arabia than ever before, making 9/11 a huge strategic blunder. That would imply that terrorists would only attack us if they're very dumb and don't know what's good for them, which is a state of affairs I'm fine with.

You can even read bin Laden's own fatwas.

Dumbass.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-jan-june98-fatwa_1998/

I really hope this whole act of yours is a bit. Because if not, you have some serious cognitive impairments.

For a great summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks

[C0ckney]

Libya is a perfect example of what I mean. You don't think it's moral because of the chaos and death, but the likely outcome of leaving it alone will be a government or even division of the country that eventually suits the people who actually live there better than any solution we try and impose.

As for not intervening, that might have been acceptable if we weren't the ones responsible for the oppressive regimes in the region. As we were however, how exactly is it moral to sit back and say 'Yeah, we made the mess you've suffered under for decades, but now you can clean it up yourself'? Would your solution to the Arab Spring have been to sit back and watch the regimes crush the uprising using the military hardware that in many cases we paid for?

i think if we take a utilitarian approach and ask are libyans better off now than they were under gaddafi, the answer, using any measure, is a resounding no. we cannot say when things are likely to get back to where they were when gaddafi was in power, or even when they will improve at all, given the dire situation. our intervention there has been a total failure. it is not enough to say, "the dictator is bad, let's get rid of him" without giving any thought to what comes next; sometimes the devil you know really is better.

we can contrast this with neighbouring tunisa, where a popular uprising, without outside aid, toppled the government and now the country looks to have a bright democratic future.

there's another aspect of intervention which hasn't been touched upon: the subordination of the people concerned's interests to those of western countries, or even western politicians. this can be seen most clearly at present in syria, where the current policy of sustaining the weakest of the three sides (i leave the kurds out here) will merely prolong the civil war. this policy of supporting 'moderate' rebels, or rather stepping up existing support, seems to exist solely to avoid the embarrassment to western politicians that would result from changing policy, through admitting the obvious truth, that assad is the most (and only) effective anti-ISIS force in syria.

[regexcellent]

You can even read bin Laden's own fatwas.

Dumbass.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-july-dec96-fatwa_1996/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military-jan-june98-fatwa_1998/

I really hope this whole act of yours is a bit. Because if not, you have some serious cognitive impairments.

For a great summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives...ber_11_attacks

The idea that 9/11 was an attempt to get us not to interfere in the internal politics of Saudi Arabia is retarded because...if that was their intention, they failed miserably since we now have closer ties with Saudi Arabia than ever before, making 9/11 a huge strategic blunder. That would imply that terrorists would only attack us if they're very dumb and don't know what's good for them, which is a state of affairs I'm fine with.

To clarify this point further, attacking us because of our perceived colonialism/imperialism/whatever doesn't mean that we were attacked because of our actual colonialism/imperialism/whatever.

Once again, you fail to grasp simple logic and the difference between what people say and what people do.

[C0ckney]

[Sava]

I'm going to think of it as a bit. I like you too much not to.

[Hauldren Collider]

Saudis don't live in squalor. The entire country is a welfare state of nordic proportions, thanks to the oil.

[kentonio]

i think if we take a utilitarian approach and ask are libyans better off now than they were under gaddafi, the answer, using any measure, is a resounding no. we cannot say when things are likely to get back to where they were when gaddafi was in power, or even when they will improve at all, given the dire situation. our intervention there has been a total failure. it is not enough to say, "the dictator is bad, let's get rid of him" without giving any thought to what comes next; sometimes the devil you know really is better.

No, I'm sick of hearing this. It's EXACTLY the same line of argument that used to be used about how x minority group didn't need equality because the turmoil of providing it would be too big a price to pay. Always easy to say when you're not the one living without any basic human rights. It doesn't matter how things are NOW what matters is how things will be in the endless future to come, and yes that comes with a price.

we can contrast this with neighbouring tunisa, where a popular uprising, without outside aid, toppled the government and now the country looks to have a bright democratic future.

You honestly think that the difference between the two outcomes is down to the west participating in the overthrow in Libya?

there's another aspect of intervention which hasn't been touched upon: the subordination of the people concerned's interests to those of western countries, or even western politicians. this can be seen most clearly at present in syria, where the current policy of sustaining the weakest of the three sides (i leave the kurds out here) will merely prolong the civil war. this policy of supporting 'moderate' rebels, or rather stepping up existing support, seems to exist solely to avoid the embarrassment to western politicians that would result from changing policy, through admitting the obvious truth, that assad is the most (and only) effective anti-ISIS force in syria.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. We're trying to create outcomes that suit our needs, not the needs of the people. Sometimes they might coincide by chance, but our national interests always come first. What is happening in Syria is exactly the opposite of what I'm calling for, instead of intervening and helping to overthrow Assad and then leaving, we've meddled and tried to ensure that the best party for our interests will come out on top. As usual. We could have jumped in when the revolution started and ended the whole thing long ago. Instead there's hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians and the west are yet again immersed in another ME conflict that probably isn't going to end for the foreseeable future.

[kentonio]

Saudis don't live in squalor. The entire country is a welfare state of nordic proportions, thanks to the oil.

You are literally too stupid to be alive.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rty-inequality

The Saudi government discloses little official data about its poorest citizens. But press reports and private estimates suggest that between 2 million and 4 million of the country's native Saudis live on less than about $530 a month – about $17 a day – considered the poverty line in Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom has a two-tier economy made up of about 16 million Saudis, with most of the rest foreign workers. The poverty rate among Saudis continues to rise as youth unemployment skyrockets. More than two-thirds of Saudis are under 30, and nearly three-quarters of all unemployed Saudis are in their 20s, according to government statistics.

Oh and let's not even get into the conditions those migrant workers live under..

[C0ckney]

No, I'm sick of hearing this. It's EXACTLY the same line of argument that used to be used about how x minority group didn't need equality because the turmoil of providing it would be too big a price to pay. Always easy to say when you're not the one living without any basic human rights. It doesn't matter how things are NOW what matters is how things will be in the endless future to come, and yes that comes with a price.

that's utter nonsense, and this false equivalence you draw here, shows the weakness of position. i note that you haven't tried to counter anything i actually said...

You honestly think that the difference between the two outcomes is down to the west participating in the overthrow in Libya?

it is not the only reason of course, tunisa is not divided tribally in the same that libya is, but it is a key difference and one which has had an effect. the uncomfortable truth is that sometimes the people of a particular place would be better off under someone like gaddafi (lest we forget, libya had the highest HDI in africa before his overthrow), than in the chaos that comes in the wake of outside intervention to remove them.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. We're trying to create outcomes that suit our needs, not the needs of the people. Sometimes they might coincide by chance, but our national interests always come first. What is happening in Syria is exactly the opposite of what I'm calling for, instead of intervening and helping to overthrow Assad and then leaving, we've meddled and tried to ensure that the best party for our interests will come out on top. As usual. We could have jumped in when the revolution started and ended the whole thing long ago. Instead there's hundreds of thousands of dead Syrians and the west are yet again immersed in another ME conflict that probably isn't going to end for the foreseeable future.

what i am saying here is that the subordination of the syrian, libya or other people's interests to western interests is an inevitable consequence of western intervention.

and your position here is rather odd, to say the least. you want to get rid of assad and have him replaced by...either the fragmented and fractious rebel groups who the west are currently supporting or; ISIS? you say that it would have been better to have removed assad quickly at the beginning and that everything would have been over quickly (perhaps by christmas?), but i see no reason to believe that. saddam and gaddafi were both removed quickly and the results have been disastrous for the iraqi and libyan people; both conflicts are still going on.

[kentonio]

that's utter nonsense, and this false equivalence you draw here, shows the weakness of position. i note that you haven't tried to counter anything i actually said...

It's not utter nonsense, the position you're taking is the same high handed one that too many westerners take where the other folk can be left to live utterly horrible lives because the cost of their freedom is perceived by us to be too high. It's incredibly condescending. When Arab Spring started those people were happy to risk their lives for freedom, and in come cases needed our help to get it because the regimes were just too damn strong.

it is not the only reason of course, tunisa is not divided tribally in the same that libya is, but it is a key difference and one which has had an effect. the uncomfortable truth is that sometimes the people of a particular place would be better off under someone like gaddafi (lest we forget, libya had the highest HDI in africa before his overthrow), than in the chaos that comes in the wake of outside intervention to remove them.

Oh there you go again. 'The people of that particular place would be better of'?! Who the **** are you to tell the people of Libya that they'd be better off living under a dictatorship? If they were so much better off, then please explain why they felt the need to rise up against that very dictatorship risking their lives in the process if things were so damn peachy.

what i am saying here is that the subordination of the syrian, libya or other people's interests to western interests is an inevitable consequence of western intervention.

Except it isn't unless we chose it to be. Intervention is a temporary measure to go some small way to fixing our mistakes from the past. Whether we chose to do that, or just use it as yet another way to continue to further our own interests is completely a choice. The stupid thing is that walking away after intervention would almost certainly serve us far better in the long run anyway.

and your position here is rather odd, to say the least. you want to get rid of assad and have him replaced by...either the fragmented and fractious rebel groups who the west are currently supporting or; ISIS? you say that it would have been better to have removed assad quickly at the beginning and that everything would have been over quickly (perhaps by christmas?), but i see no reason to believe that. saddam and gaddafi were both removed quickly and the results have been disastrous for the iraqi and libyan people; both conflicts are still going on.

Yes my position is unusual, because most people want the easy option. Much of the middle east is a collection of artifical borders created by us with little thought or care about what the people there want. Of course there's going to be fractious groups and conflict while the region struggles to find a shape that actually fits the peoples needs. Some countries probably need to break up into smaller entities, others merge across some border lines. Of course it probably won't happen because we won't allow it to happen. As for the likes of ISIS, if we stopped trying to prevent self determination in the region and allowed states to have the governments they actual want instead of the governments we think are good for them (us) then the extremist movements would lose steam. When it comes down to it though if the dictatorships are replaced by theocracies, then so what? What exactly does it have to do with us, and what exactly do you expect us to be able to do about it other than turn the region into a warzone yet again?

[C0ckney]

It's not utter nonsense, the position you're taking is the same high handed one that too many westerners take where the other folk can be left to live utterly horrible lives because the cost of their freedom is perceived by us to be too high. It's incredibly condescending. When Arab Spring started those people were happy to risk their lives for freedom, and in come cases needed our help to get it because the regimes were just too damn strong.

you seem to think that 'freedom' (whatever that means) is something which can be: a) given and; b) imposed from the outside. i reject that completely and see it as no more than an updated version of the white man's burden. you also assert, again, that people's "utterly horrible lives" will be improved by dropping bombs on them; i disagree and once again point to recent examples of dropping bombs or sending troops: iraq; afghanistan and; libya and the complete lack of improvement in people's lives resulting from these actions.

Oh there you go again. 'The people of that particular place would be better of'?! Who the **** are you to tell the people of Libya that they'd be better off living under a dictatorship? If they were so much better off, then please explain why they felt the need to rise up against that very dictatorship risking their lives in the process if things were so damn peachy.

my position is that the libyan people were better off before gaddafi's overthrown than they are now, and i have provided some evidence to support this. you seem to think the reverse is true; perhaps you could explain why.

Except it isn't unless we chose it to be. Intervention is a temporary measure to go some small way to fixing our mistakes from the past. Whether we chose to do that, or just use it as yet another way to continue to further our own interests is completely a choice. The stupid thing is that walking away after intervention would almost certainly serve us far better in the long run anyway.

i think the idea of separating intervention from advancing western interests is a mere fantasy.

Yes my position is unusual, because most people want the easy option. Much of the middle east is a collection of artifical borders created by us with little thought or care about what the people there want. Of course there's going to be fractious groups and conflict while the region struggles to find a shape that actually fits the peoples needs. Some countries probably need to break up into smaller entities, others merge across some border lines. Of course it probably won't happen because we won't allow it to happen. As for the likes of ISIS, if we stopped trying to prevent self determination in the region and allowed states to have the governments they actual want instead of the governments we think are good for them (us) then the extremist movements would lose steam. When it comes down to it though if the dictatorships are replaced by theocracies, then so what? What exactly does it have to do with us, and what exactly do you expect us to be able to do about it other than turn the region into a warzone yet again?

while i agree that long term solutions in the middle east will probably require some borders to be withdrawn (or people deciding to abandon them and the states they separate altogether), i don't really see what that has to with the syrian civil war, and in general, this part is rather unclear.

[Bereta_Eder]

My country used to be a colony. The only effects we feel here from your oppression are a popular preference for coffee over tea.

Wait, are you seriously comparing a situation where whole peoples were enslaved then put into boats in shackles and taken a world away, with the same people that simply got their own government so they wouldn't pay taxes to an authority it didn't represent them?