Staggering numbers on Syria..

[Aeson]

gaddafi was in power for forty years, his rule was ended by western intervention in a civil war, which broke during the last year of his reign.

The civil war broke out during Gaddafi's reign, before western intervention. That's not stability. Neither was what lead to it. His rule was a doomed attempt at eternal suppression of any opposition. I'm not going to mourn his loss. I'll hope for a better government to fill the void, and if an authoritarian one does instead ... I'll root for it to get buried like Gaddafi.

At no point would I ever wish Gaddafi or someone like him on any people (or the world, given his horrible effect on it even outside Libya).

You on the other hand wish to forgive Gaddafi of everything to ignore the actual effects of his rule and pretend like he could just magically snap his fingers and undo the mess he had spent 40 years making.

the first is not an argument, and the second is a bit like saying that the birth of ghengis khan led to the creation of the mongol empire.

It's a statement of fact, and certainly an argument as well. I included it in a list of factual statements which you responded to with "you're ignorant". You never did address any of those direct questions when I asked you to qualify which facts you were disagreeing with.

As for the second part ... you analogy is absurdly stupid. Like you said, Gaddafi had 40 years at the helm, and at times the future for Libya was pretty bright. Lots of oil money can certainly help even incompetent rulers look decent for a while. Libya today is largely what he made it, by driving it into the abyss. He brought about his own demise through his oppression of his own people, and pissing off much of the international community along the way.

The world is a better place without him, though it will likely take a long time for his horrible effect on the world to diminish in that region. That's largely on h is head (and as I said, the monarch before him and colonialism before that ... western military intervention too, but by that point it was basically choosing which side was going to ethnically cleanse the other). But Gaddafi gets a lion's share of it. He turned a rather rich country into a place where civil war was ongoing, and likely to continue until some form of genocide/ethinic cleansing ended it. That's a pretty impressive failure.

yes we have a difference of opinion, but your opinion was not based upon any facts. for example you have said several times that morsi assumed 'dictatorial powers', without once talking about the context of that action nor mentioning that he backed down soon after because of popular pressure - being generous one might say that this was due to ignorance, but instead of informing yourself you have simply kept on repeating it and based your 'arguments' on it.

Morsi tried to make himself into a dictator, and succeeded for a time. Proclaiming himself above the law. He even had backing from the military up to that point ... he just threw it all away to force his decrees onto the country without regard for the law. That alone is enough to warrant the removal from office. I would support the removal of a US president if they did that even for a day. Or an hour. Or a second. It's simply antithetical to the office.

He made himself a dictator to try to ram a constitution through an assembly where the opposition had withdrawn awaiting a court decision on whether or not the assembly was even legal. That's more than enough to warrant his removal from office. Just because he backed down after it became clear he couldn't maintain himself as dictator doesn't make it any better.

[C0ckney]

No, you're lacking human compassion because you're so wrapped up in your intellectual position that you're just ignoring this is real people involved.

Luckily it doesn't matter a damn what you think or want, people will rise up against oppression and **** any westerner who tells them they shouldn't.

the people involved: you mean like those who've been killed, those who've been forced to flee and those who remain whose living standards have plummeted and face a worsening civil war? all because of the 'we must do something' brigade who provided and continue to provide the political cover necessary for disastrous ventures like the one in libya.

[C0ckney]

The civil war broke out during Gaddafi's reign, before western intervention. That's not stability. Neither was what lead to it. His rule was a doomed attempt at eternal suppression of any opposition. I'm not going to mourn his loss. I'll hope for a better government to fill the void, and if an authoritarian one does instead ... I'll root for it to get buried like Gaddafi.

At no point would I ever wish Gaddafi or someone like him on any people (or the world, given his horrible effect on it even outside Libya).

You on the other hand wish to forgive Gaddafi of everything to ignore the actual effects of his rule and pretend like he could just magically snap his fingers and undo the mess he had spent 40 years making.

that's all very nice, but the choice is between gaddafi continuing in power the present situation. if the west had not intervened then it's almost that he would have won the civil war and thus retained power. your inability to understand that choices are made within, and thus limited by, a particular set of historical circumstances is really amazing.

and perhaps you could stick to what i said instead of building strawmen. i'm sure it's hard, but now is as good a time as any to break the habit.

It's a statement of fact, and certainly an argument as well. I included it in a list of factual statements which you responded to with "you're ignorant". You never did address any of those direct questions when I asked you to qualify which facts you were disagreeing with.

As for the second part ... you analogy is absurdly stupid. Like you said, Gaddafi had 40 years at the helm, and at times the future for Libya was pretty bright. Lots of oil money can certainly help even incompetent rulers look decent for a while. Libya today is largely what he made it, by driving it into the abyss. He brought about his own demise through his oppression of his own people, and pissing off much of the international community along the way.

The world is a better place without him, though it will likely take a long time for his horrible effect on the world to diminish in that region. That's largely on h is head (and as I said, the monarch before him and colonialism before that ... western military intervention too, but by that point it was basically choosing which side was going to ethnically cleanse the other). But Gaddafi gets a lion's share of it. He turned a rather rich country into a place where civil war was ongoing, and likely to continue until some form of genocide/ethinic cleansing ended it. That's a pretty impressive failure.

a statement of the obvious that everyone accepts, especially given that i, who brought him up, used him as example of dictator who did their country good. you don't get any credit for repeating what i say and then pretending it's somehow your 'argument'. and the second is ridiculous, deliberately so, yet it is true in the same way that yours is; but for ghengis khan's mother there would have been no mongol empire. if you insist on considering only one factor then it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.

Morsi tried to make himself into a dictator, and succeeded for a time. Proclaiming himself above the law. He even had backing from the military up to that point ... he just threw it all away to force his decrees onto the country without regard for the law. That alone is enough to warrant the removal from office. I would support the removal of a US president if they did that even for a day. Or an hour. Or a second. It's simply antithetical to the office.

He made himself a dictator to try to ram a constitution through an assembly where the opposition had withdrawn awaiting a court decision on whether or not the assembly was even legal. That's more than enough to warrant his removal from office. Just because he backed down after it became clear he couldn't maintain himself as dictator doesn't make it any better.

i have explained what happened in clear language in post 132. if you wish to actually dispute my version of events, then feel free to provide some proof. your false and self-serving justifications for why you became an apologist for the military coup interest me not.

[C0ckney]

it's all very well to support intervention to remove a dictator, but the question must be asked "what comes next?". we have seen what came next in libya. it's very hard for me to understand how anyone can think it's led to a better situation.

[rah]

I'm thinking one step back for two forward but it looks like it's going to take awhile before those two steps forward.

[Bereta_Eder]

The story with syria was basically that muricans dragging along the brits as usual tried to wrestle away russian power from assad and plunged the place in endless mayhem.

Any narative that doesn't take this as its starting point is destined to be flawed.

[C0ckney]

not really. it's much more about local and regional struggles. the western countries have played second fiddle up to now, although they are planning to do more in the future...

[C0ckney]

I'm thinking one step back for two forward but it looks like it's going to take awhile before those two steps forward.

perhaps; no one can predict the future after all. however, given the present situation any steps forward are looking very unlikely and further steps back almost certain.

[Aeson]

that's all very nice, but the choice is between gaddafi continuing in power the present situation. if the west had not intervened then it's almost that he would have won the civil war and thus retained power.

Your supposition is that that would have been better than what is currently the case. That ignores that Gaddafi's blundering and oppressing of his people lead to the civil war. He was shelling his own cities, murdering suspected dissidents, and it was just getting started.

The aftermath of a civil war is going to be bad no matter which side wins it. Hopefully the Libyan people can pick up the pieces and do what's necessary to create a long-term stable and free country (or more likely, countries).

and perhaps you could stick to what i said instead of building strawmen. i'm sure it's hard, but now is as good a time as any to break the habit.

"it's all very well to support intervention to remove a dictator, but the question must be asked "what comes next?"."

I have been very clear I didn't support intervention in those cases. You're the one building strawmen...

a statement of the obvious that everyone accepts, especially given that i, who brought him up, used him as example of dictator who did their country good. you don't get any credit for repeating what i say and then pretending it's somehow your 'argument'. and the second is ridiculous, deliberately so, yet it is true in the same way that yours is; but for ghengis khan's mother there would have been no mongol empire. if you insist on considering only one factor then it leads to a ridiculous conclusion.

Any statement put forward to support a position is an argument, even if everyone agrees it's true.

I'm glad you can finally start to address what I said in specific, by admitting a portion of it was indisputable fact. Contrary to your intitial responses to that post which included that argument, which you claimed was based on ignorance ... without any qualification as to which portion(s) of the statement you were referring to.

You're still dodging all the other arguments and even direct questions that were linked to that statement.

i have explained what happened in clear language in post 132. if you wish to actually dispute my version of events, then feel free to provide some proof. your false and self-serving justifications for why you became an apologist for the military coup interest me not.

Your timeline and mine are the same. You just want to let him off the hook for placing himself above the law. I don't.

[Aeson]

the people involved: you mean like those who've been killed, those who've been forced to flee and those who remain whose living standards have plummeted and face a worsening civil war? all because of the 'we must do something' brigade who provided and continue to provide the political cover necessary for disastrous ventures like the one in libya.

Gaddafi played his part too. You keep wanting to give him a free pass, and ignore the role he played in driving the country into civil war.

Probably you do so because he's a socialist dictator, which is the kind of man you seem to always have a hard-on for.

[C0ckney]

Gaddafi played his part too. You keep wanting to give him a free pass, and ignore the role he played in driving the country into civil war.

Probably you do so because he's a socialist dictator, which is the kind of man you seem to always have a hard-on for.

you are both dishonest and stupid.

[C0ckney]

Your supposition is that that would have been better than what is currently the case.

yes that is the core of my argument. yours is that removing gaddafi has had positive effects for libya. i have provided evidence for my view. you have provided some vague generalities and said that perhaps good things will result in decades. if you'd like address the complete lack of proof to back up your argument, then be my guest.

"it's all very well to support intervention to remove a dictator, but the question must be asked "what comes next?"."

I have been very clear I didn't support intervention in those cases. You're the one building strawmen...

it wasn't directed at you, though i suppose you never miss a chance to respond to something by saying 'no you!'

Any statement put forward to support a position is an argument, even if everyone agrees it's true.

I'm glad you can finally start to address what I said in specific, by admitting a portion of it was indisputable fact. Contrary to your intitial responses to that post which included that argument, which you claimed was based on ignorance ... without any qualification as to which portion(s) of the statement you were referring to.

You're still dodging all the other arguments and even direct questions that were linked to that statement.

i introduced the subject in the first place. i put forward my view on francia in posts 70 and 73. you ignored them and even accused me of not making an argument. now you're accusing me of not responding to your repost of what had already been said.

Your timeline and mine are the same. You just want to let him off the hook for placing himself above the law. I don't.

as you agree with my timeline, then you clearly retract all the false things you said the subject before. perhaps there's hope for you yet.

[Aeson]

i have provided evidence for my view.

No. You've even gone so far as to admit your view is unsupported conjecture. Which it is. Also you continually ignore the part Gaddafi played in creating that mess, to pretend he would somehow magically have made it better. Reality is he had driven the country to the point of civil war. he was shelling his own cities, and killing suspected dissidents.

I've based my view on analysis of the entire course of human history, which has clearly shown that revolutions toppling oppressive regimes will on average lead to better results than if those oppressive regimes were maintained into perpetuity.

now you're accusing me of not responding to your repost of what had already been said.

This is what I was referring to. You have addressed A specifically now after much prodding, yet when I stated each of these things you simply called the argument ignorant. So which of these other things am I wrong about?

Which of these things that I referenced are you disputing?

a) "Francia chose to be a dictator:
b) "create a police state"
c) "execute dissidents"
d) "remove personal freedoms"
e) "limited higher education"
f) [confiscated property of foreigners]
g) [imprisoned foreigners]

as you agree with my timeline, then you clearly retract all the false things you said the subject before. perhaps there's hope for you yet.

We are in agreement on the timeline. You see him claiming dictatorial powers and setting himself above the law as acceptable. I don't.

That's why you want to suck Morsi's ****, and I'm glad he was ousted.

[C0ckney]

No. You've even gone so far as to admit your view is unsupported conjecture. Which it is. Also you continually ignore the part Gaddafi played in creating that mess, to pretend he would somehow magically have made it better. Reality is he had driven the country to the point of civil war. he was shelling his own cities, and killing suspected dissidents.

I've based my view on analysis of the entire course of human history, which has clearly shown that revolutions toppling oppressive regimes will on average lead to better results than if those oppressive regimes were maintained into perpetuity.

so no evidence based on the actual situation that libya finds itself in. let me know when you're ready to back your claims up.

This is what I was referring to. You have addressed A specifically now after much prodding, yet when I stated each of these things you simply called the argument ignorant. So which of these other things am I wrong about?

no, i have simply ignored it because a) i have made my argument in posts 70 and 73 and b) i have also explained why your view is ignorant in post 114. as reading is obviously not your strong suit, here it is again:

i am referring to - and to be honest mocking - the statements you made about paraguay that betray your lack of knowledge. the risible comparison made to the situation in the USA, the guff about right choices and the complete refusal (again for want of knowledge) to consider and compare the pre-franica and post-francia situations.

when you are ready to address that, let me know. i can suggest some reading material if that would help.

We are in agreement on the timeline. You see him claiming dictatorial powers and setting himself above the law as acceptable. I don't.

That's why you want to suck Morsi's ****, and I'm glad he was ousted.

yes, it's highly amusing to see you saying that dictators must be removed and then shilling for the egyptian military; i'd like to think they're paying you, but i expect not.

[C0ckney]

anyway at the risk of dragging this thread back on topic, the rebels have announced a 15 seat council for idlib with 9 for ahrar-al sham, 4 for al-nusra, 1 for faylaq al-sham and 1 for jund al-aqsa. it will be interesting to see how the rebels - including the syrian branch of al-qaeda - handle running a major city. previous attempts have not been successful and marred by all kinds of excesses.