Staggering numbers on Syria..

[kentonio]

The second part of your paragraph is at odds with you being in support of removing Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi in the first place. That part I agree with - our governments should get involved if you actually have someone to support (case in point - Mali) and not start the whole mess without an alternative (and clearly better) ending, as is currently the case in Syria.

We had a responsiblity to help remove the old regimes because we were responsible for putting them in place. They weren't removed out of the blue however, if you recall a little movement called Arab Spring, the people were the ones rising up and demanding their chance at self determination. It's telling how little we actually bothered to help these movements when they appeared though, which then just helped contribute to the later instability. How much misery and suffering in Syria could have been avoided by helping the rebels at the start, which would have prevented ISIS from gaining prominence in the first place? Of course Syria wasn't so simple because of their Russian ties, but that's realpolitik for you.

[C0ckney]

yes it could have been so lovely, a veritable paradise on earth, just like its next door neighbour iraq!

in fact if we look at the arab spring the most successful example has been tunisa, which suffered no outside interference. perhaps that should tell us something.

[kentonio]

i'm a bit confused about the we here. 'we', presumably meaning the west, have been cautiously supporting the rebels by sending equipment and training their fighters on a limited scale, with more of the same in the pipeline. all of this prolongs the civil war of course, as the non-ISIS rebels are the weakest faction – despite their recent success in idlib - if they're not too fractious to even be called that.

Cautious being the word. Except that now the west is starting to talk about how Assad probably isn't such a bad solution after all. And so the cycle continues..

the goal is stability? they had that under gaddafi, and the highest HDI in africa as well. now they have two 'governments', whose authority is almost non-existant, power being in the hands of various groups of armed men controlling small sections of the country and a civil war that is heating up. the chaos has also made libya a favourite spot for people traffickers to start their journeys to europe, brining even more human misery to an already thoroughly miserable situation. you don't appear to have mentioned one actual improvement, well one that isn't a euphemism for the horrors taking place there.

No, stability enforced by a brutal dictator is not real stability, it's a seething cauldron of fire waiting to explode any time the people feel they can topple that leader. The difference between us is that you want an easy solution to problems and I recognize that for problems of this scale there simply isn't one. For them to go from where they were to where they want to be is going to be hard, very painful and extremely hard to watch. Unfortunately there aren't really any shortcuts to that, no matter how much you might wish there were.

[kentonio]

yes it could have been so lovely, a veritable paradise on earth, just like its next door neighbour iraq!

Iraq is a completely incomparable situation to Syria.

in fact if we look at the arab spring the most successful example has been tunisa, which suffered no outside interference. perhaps that should tell us something.

Shock news, different countries require different solutions! Gosh, this is getting really tricky isn't it!

[C0ckney]

Iraq is a completely incomparable situation to Syria.

hmm ba'arthist government: check, a leader from a minority controlling the country and oppressing the majority population: check, opposition most active in religious circles: check, a restive kurdish population: check. shall i go on?

but in any case you merely asserted that removing assad quickly would have been better, so perhaps a better start would have been to explain that.

Shock news, different countries require different solutions! Gosh, this is getting really tricky isn't it!

the 'solution' that you support in libya has been an unmitigated disaster. for some reason no amount of explanation on mine or onefoot's part can get that through your skull.

[regexcellent]

The Shah was a brutal dictator but the folks who came after him were the Ayatollahs. That was a disaster. The Tsar of Russia was a brutal dictator but the man who came after him was Lenin, then Stalin. That was an even bigger disaster. If Assad goes he's liable to be replaced by a radical Sunni militia. There's always someone worse so be careful when you roll the dice.

[Nikolai]

I'll take that scumbag Assad over ISIS any day. He might be a mass murderer, but he's a mass murderer you can work with. perhaps even reason with.

[C0ckney]

Cautious being the word. Except that now the west is starting to talk about how Assad probably isn't such a bad solution after all. And so the cycle continues..

this is perhaps because they have realised that the devil you know is sometimes better; ISIS have managed to make assad look almost acceptable. unfortunately because of the stupidity/cowardice of certain western politicians they continue with a policy of supporting the 'moderate' rebels, in line with turkey and gulf states, which merely prolongs the civil war.

No, stability enforced by a brutal dictator is not real stability, it's a seething cauldron of fire waiting to explode any time the people feel they can topple that leader. The difference between us is that you want an easy solution to problems and I recognize that for problems of this scale there simply isn't one. For them to go from where they were to where they want to be is going to be hard, very painful and extremely hard to watch. Unfortunately there aren't really any shortcuts to that, no matter how much you might wish there were.

libya was stable under gaddafi, it is in chaos now. in any case this is nonsense - is china not really stable? as for the rest, it's just meaningless.

[Aeson]

Revolution is a natural response to dictatorships. Pretending you can just have a stable dictator is either wishing for genocide against anyone with a hint of individuality, or ignoring that the "stable" dictator you're propping up is in fact creating the alternative (generally a false dichotomy) you hope to avoid.

[The Mad Monk]

What is the difference between dictatorship and monarchy?

[Hauldren Collider]

Whether or not the Queen of England invites you to her family's weddings.

[Aeson]

Depends on which dictatorship and which monarchy you are comparing.

[C0ckney]

Revolution is a natural response to dictatorships. Pretending you can just have a stable dictator is either wishing for genocide against anyone with a hint of individuality, or ignoring that the "stable" dictator you're propping up is in fact creating the alternative (generally a false dichotomy) you hope to avoid.

well i suppose you would be the expert on creating false dichotomies...

two points: first, there are all kinds of dictatorships with such diverse circumstances that it seems difficult to say anything categorical about them; second, libya is a clear example of a dictator being removed and the country becoming much less stable.

[The Mad Monk]

x-C0ckney'd

No, that would be comparing individuals making use of those forms of government. Is there any true distinction between monarchy and dictatorship, except for heredity? (even there, is that really a difference between them?)

[Aeson]

two points: first, there are all kinds of dictatorships with such diverse circumstances that it seems difficult to say anything categorical about them;

Oppressing people will always cause them to want to cast off that oppression. It will always create hatred. It will always create counter-movements that are more extremist.

To the extent it does so is the extend of the oppression.

second, libya is a clear example of a dictator being removed and the country becoming much less stable.

Gaddafi is dead because Gaddafi created an unstable environment where a bunch of people (including the West) wanted to get rid of Gaddafi. That's not stability. That's a form of suicide.

Not everything is Gaddafi's fault, but he played a huge role in ensuring the current situation in Libya is what it is.