So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[kentonio]

Ignoring "mass suffering" or creating "mass suffering". This is the question. If we take western involvement post WWII, other than Korea, ex YU (Americans no less) and recently Mali, I cannot recollect another action which reduced suffering rather than increased it.

While it is nice to think that western interventions have some positive intentions for the local population, this is not the case in majority of cases (me being lucky enough to be on a happy end of one of the few). Therefore they should not be painted as such either by the media, or by the people who can use their head.

Gosh, maybe it's a good thing that I was arguing for a different type of intervention than the ones we keep carrying out then?

In unstable countries which were often drawn by some uninitiated diplomat sometime post WWI, if anyone had people's interest in mind, political situation would always be resolved via political means, like in Indonesia or Chile, and not via a revolution like in Congo, because once you start the overthrow with arms it is Congo you can expect and nothing else. Western decision makers are not idiots not to know this, but they do it anyway, as they really do not give a **** for the local population which in most cases will live worse for decades after the western "humanitarian" intervention. (this pathetic excuse was used in Libya)

Except that it's incredibly rare for us to actually solve long running problems resulting from hastily and ill thought out border creation post colonialism, instead we generally just dampen the fires to stop them exploding and hope the problem will just go away over time.

People idealistically supporting it, like you, just give them a leg to stand domestically. If the opposition to such criminal behaviour was overwhelming in the local society, such deplorable actions taken on its behalf would be harder to make. (point in case - UK's parliamentary vote to block Cameron on Syria)

Criminal behaviour my arse. What exactly resulted from the block on military action in Syria? How did that work out for us at this current time, where you may recall we're now engaging in military action in a much worse situation in Syria. Incidentally don't tell me I can't support any form of intervention without magically giving blanket support to my governments actions, it's lazy posting at best and ****ing patronizing at worst.

For the Middle east, the chance for some sort of peaceful future was thrown away with 2003 invasion, and right now there will likely be a lot more blood spilled until some sort of new power balance is struck. That is the real result of US actions taken back then.

It's a good thing Arab Spring didn't happen post 2003 then, otherwise your entire argument wouldn't make any damn sense. Oh wait..

I also have no damn idea why you're pointing at Iraq as if it works against my position, when I'm a strident opponent of occupation and how that entire **** show went down. Perhaps if you considered there might be a whole variety of positions between warmonger and peacenik then you might avoid these irrelevancies.

[C0ckney]

That's amusing because from where I'm sitting it's you who holds the arrogant position. You were talking about how those people were better off under a dictatorial system than the cost of freeing them. I don't see how much more condescending a position you can hold that than. You also seem to completely divest the west of any of the actual responsibility for the regimes we created, while simultaneously bemoaning any form of current western intervention. So it's ok to just wash our hands of the whole region now we've profited from it enough?

i've stated my position clearly and there's not much point in continuing if you're going to ignore what i've said and just post the same old nonsense again and again.

in any case, this is merely a false dichotomy; a pretence that nothing exists between complete inaction and dropping bombs. there are a whole range of things that the west could do to improve things in other parts of the world, mostly related to economic development. breaking with the imperial past though means nothing unless it means letting people find their own political and social solutions.

You're fighting a strawman of your own making. I've said repeatedly that it's not about the short term. They don't have to be better off now for the long term outlook to be a positive one.

so you admit that things are worse now than before, that's a start. now perhaps you'd like to explain why the long term outlook for the libyan people is positive; you could try pointing to some facts rather than vague and (deliberately i suspect) meaningless generalities.

If we're only allowed to support positions that are likely to actually become reality, then you should probably just stop talking about international relations and domestic policy right now.

your position makes no sense. firstly, you criticise the various problems that recent western interventions have created and say you don't support them; secondly, you set out how the west should intervene; thirdly, you admit that your vision (leaving to one side its obvious flaws) won't ever come to pass and that any intervention will follow the pattern you criticise, and then; finally, you affirm that you support western interventions! completely bizarre.

[kentonio]

i've stated my position clearly and there's not much point in continuing if you're going to ignore what i've said and just post the same old nonsense again and again.

Pot, kettle, black.. I don't want to just get into an exchange of insults though, I know that what you want is for things to work out for the people there as well as possible, we just disagree on how to achieve that.

in any case, this is merely a false dichotomy; a pretence that nothing exists between complete inaction and dropping bombs. there are a whole range of things that the west could do to improve things in other parts of the world, mostly related to economic development. breaking with the imperial past though means nothing unless it means letting people find their own political and social solutions.

Have I drifted into Alice in Wonderland territory? This is EXACTLY what I've been saying for goodness sake!

so you admit that things are worse now than before, that's a start. now perhaps you'd like to explain why the long term outlook for the libyan people is positive; you could try pointing to some facts rather than vague and (deliberately i suspect) meaningless generalities.

For exactly the reason you just mentioned, people need to build their own political systems not have them imposed from without. If the route to that involves violence then the route is likely to be rocky, but that doesn't mean it doesn't result in a better stronger system.

your position makes no sense. firstly, you criticise the various problems that recent western interventions have created and say you don't support them; secondly, you set out how the west should intervene; thirdly, you admit that your vision (leaving to one side its obvious flaws) won't ever come to pass and that any intervention will follow the pattern you criticise, and then; finally, you affirm that you support western interventions! completely bizarre.

Actually it makes perfect sense, but we're several posts past the point where you seemed like you actually had any interest in discussing it rather than just going on the offensive, so I'll leave it here.

[C0ckney]

Have I drifted into Alice in Wonderland territory? This is EXACTLY what I've been saying for goodness sake!

no it isn't. western military interventions are completely incompatible with letting people find their own political and social solutions.

For exactly the reason you just mentioned, people need to build their own political systems not have them imposed from without. If the route to that involves violence then the route is likely to be rocky, but that doesn't mean it doesn't result in a better stronger system.

this i'm afraid falls under the category of vague and meaningless generalities. what exactly about the situation in libya leads you to think that the long term outlook for its people is positive? when and how do you think things will improve?

Actually it makes perfect sense, but we're several posts past the point where you seemed like you actually had any interest in discussing it rather than just going on the offensive, so I'll leave it here.

no it doesn't make any sense. your position is both contradictory and detached from reality; worse still, a reality which you admit.

[kentonio]

no it isn't. western military interventions are completely incompatible with letting people find their own political and social solutions.

Except they wouldn't be, if the intervention was to simply help topple the regime and then leave. Which is what I've been calling for for goodness sake.

this i'm afraid falls under the category of vague and meaningless generalities. what exactly about the situation in libya leads you to think that the long term outlook for its people is positive? when and how do you think things will improve?

I don't really care what you find vague and meaningless. I also have no interest in being drawn into some game of trying to put a timescale on something no-one can know. It'll take as long as it takes.

no it doesn't make any sense. your position is both contradictory and detached from reality; worse still, a reality which you admit.

It isn't contradictory in the slightest, it just requires a way of thinking that you seem incapable of grasping. As for detached from reality, considering your own political views I think you've got a ****ing cheek quite frankly.

[C0ckney]

Except they wouldn't be, if the intervention was to simply help topple the regime and then leave. Which is what I've been calling for for goodness sake.

I don't really care what you find vague and meaningless. I also have no interest in being drawn into some game of trying to put a timescale on something no-one can know. It'll take as long as it takes.

It isn't contradictory in the slightest, it just requires a way of thinking that you seem incapable of grasping. As for detached from reality, considering your own political views I think you've got a ****ing cheek quite frankly.

ok ken, if you can't see how invading a country and toppling the government, and even in some case the whole system upon which that government rests, is incompatible with allowing people to decide their political and social solutions, then i can't help you.

if you can't produce any concrete reasons, from the current context, for libya to improve either in the short or long term, then i think it's safe to assume that this is because there are none.

i am perfectly capable of grasping the 'have my cake and eat it' way of thinking; however, i reject it. and i will say that i approached this debate in good faith, without resorting to insults.

i think that in light of the fact we're not getting anywhere, we should call it day.

[kentonio]

ok ken, if you can't see how invading a country and toppling the government, and even in some case the whole system upon which that government rests, is incompatible with allowing people to decide their political and social solutions, then i can't help you.

And likewise if you can't see how leaving a dictatorial regime in place that WE helped create and support might prevent people from deciding their own political and social solutions, then I can't help you either.

if you can't produce any concrete reasons, from the current context, for libya to improve either in the short or long term, then i think it's safe to assume that this is because there are none.

You can assume what you like. The whole theory is based on the idea of the country being free to decide its own future path. How long that will take and what it will look like afterwards is unknowable, so asking for accurate predictions is pointless. The outcome may well be one that we in the west don't like too, so positive ends up being utterly subjective. What I'm saying is that it's likely to lead to a much more stable, renewable outcome which suits the needs of the people better than either living under a dictatorship or having a system imposed by us. The point of contention here seems to be that I think if the cost of that is temporary instability, then I think thats a necessary price worth paying,

i am perfectly capable of grasping the 'have my cake and eat it' way of thinking; however, i reject it. and i will say that i approached this debate in good faith, without resorting to insults.

i think that in light of the fact we're not getting anywhere, we should call it day.

I've had no desire to let this sink into a round of mud slinging, but you went fairly quickly from asking reasonable questions to basically telling me my thinking was contradictory and irrational, mixed in with various comments about how I was just providing backing to the existing policies of the government. That's always going to make me pissed off. As you say though, if that's the likely outcome of us continuing then we should indeed call it a day.

[Elok]

Oh, c'mon, Ken, you can go on for pages and pages with BK.

[kentonio]

I don't think Cockney is an *******.

[Bereta_Eder]

Indeed he isn't

As for all the "interventions", personally I find it hard to swallow that they happen without a reason.
I find it impossible to conclude that this reason is based on principals.
More often than not I think it is based on (very often erroneous) perceived interests.

That the "west" should butt out is a very noble pursuit, assuming this is sought after for everyone else as well.
More often than not many arenas are simply theaters of interests that are battling themselves out.

If there are enough people that can understand and push for something that's humane and sustainable so much the better.
It seems to me that various organizations are more trustworthy than even a government run solely by Ghandis.
And such organizations exist and do important work, if it is in promoting women's rights worldwide, trying to difuse and dissipate tentions, enganging in early warning signs predictions and try to raise public awareness etc

[kentonio]

And such organizations exist and do important work, if it is in promoting women's rights worldwide..

You're just trying to annoy Kidicious now, aren't you..

[Saras]

A good summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

[Bereta_Eder]

[Dinner]

A good summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

Now THAT was ****ing funny!

[molly bloom]

A good summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqayC1sR7g

That was vastly amusing. Thank you very much.

Reminded me of Michael Moore interviewing Americans in Paris in 'Sicko'.