Staggering numbers on Syria..

[C0ckney]

What is the alternative, you guys?

the alternative according to them is a series of worthy generalities about freedom and democracy, except of course when they don't like the result...

[C0ckney]

You are misunderstanding what I am getting at. I haven't claimed anywhere that you support supporting dictators. Though you certainly do seem to want to suck some of their cocks (especially the socialist ones).

I have said that the Egyptians (and Libyans and any group of people) shouldn't accept a dictator ... it is always a good thing to throw them off.Yes, at times there will be steps back, but the only way to get to a better government is to keep throwing off the oppressors.

so we come back full circle. how has libya improved since gaddafi's overthrow?

and let's have something concrete please, no vague nonsense about 'steps back'.

My logic is consistent. I supported the Muslim Brotherhood's right to participate in the elections, even though I don't agree with their views in most cases. But after Morsi won the election, he eventually took steps to give himself dictatorial powers. At that point the Egyptian people were right to kick him out. You can't just win an election and then proclaim yourself above the law.

As long as the Egyptian people aren't willing to accept a dictator, they will eventually get a government that's worth having.

will they? and if they elect someone you don't like - someone who doesn't quite come up to your standards - a military coup will sort it out. and it's all to the good because, as we all know, history is a continuous process of improvement. and besides, you can see the future, despite knowing nothing about the past.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

In Iraq and Syria, ancient Christian communities who have existed there in relative peace since biblical times

If you overlook the Persian persecutions of the 7th century. And Tamerlane's ethnic cleansings of the 14th/15th century. And the Ottoman ethnic cleansing of the 19th century. And the Young Turks persecution of the early 20th century.

[I AM MOBIUS]

I call that relative peace, don't you...?

Also, those communities survived all that - it is only now that those communities are actually in danger of being snuffed out forever...

But then everyone will be the same ethnicity and religion and peace will break out - democracy in action!

Now I understand Aeson and Kent's reasoning - we just have to get rid of all the 'dissenting voters' first...

[Aeson]

Also, directed at Kent, Aeson etc:

Just how long should these states take to 'correct' themselves and rise up phoenix-like from the ashes of mass ethnic cleansings/genocides/destruction etc? In Iraq and Syria, ancient Christian communities are literally being extinguised before our very eyes!

"mass ethinic cleansings/genocides/destruction" ... you mean like when Saddam was gassing his own people, building rape palaces, and starting wars with neighbors? The thing you fear is the foregone conclusion of (and generally speaking, a condition of) the the option you think is best.

What is the alternative, you guys? Especially considering that your governments are quite happy to support countless dictatorships/autocrats and strongmen around the world now and before when it suited them. Quite happy to topple loads of democracies when the people have voted for the wrong people etc...

I am not saying the US (or West and Soviets/Russia in general) are blameless. Quite the opposite. Most of the problems you list started with or were greatly exacerbated by colonialism and the retarded lines and puppet dictators we left behind afterwards. Support for oppressive regimes and flooding arms into the region has probably ensured it's going to be a ****ty place for a long time to come. As long as we continue doing that, there will likely be no end to the ****ty state of affairs. Because we're strong and they are weak in a military and economic sense.

We should instead be using our strength to increase prosperity and offer a carrot to those who distribute power.

Not to mention that apparently Turkey should be allowed to descend into an Islamist state for similar reasons, as the democratically elected government erodes all the secular checks and balances put in place by the autocratic Ataturk.

That's the point. The dictators you are claiming are the best option ... are the reason for the options you fear. They have forced the opposition into being ever more extremist, and demonstrably haven't been able to contain that opposition.

What are you going to have us do? Glass the place over with nukes? Because supporting and arming oppressive regimes has clearly failed.

Next you'll be saying that you support the democratically elected Hamas...

Hamas is another example of oppression forcing people to extremism.

[Aeson]

so we come back full circle. how has libya improved since gaddafi's overthrow?

Like I said, you're very short-sighted. The reality is it may be decades before Libya can get to a point where the problems that fomented under Gaddafi can be addressed and dissipated. Gaddafi's rule (and the monarchy that came before it, and the colonial rule before that) demonstrably lead to the current situation. Pretending the current situation is "sans Gaddafi influence" is ridiculous.

In any case, it's an intellectually dishonest comparison. A proper comparison would be whether or not the current state of affairs would be better if Gaddafi had managed to maintain control. The country was going into the ****ter either way. That's an effect civil wars have.

and let's have something concrete please, no vague nonsense about 'steps back'.

You are the one relying completely on vague assertions. I have addressed specifics like Morsi's actions in office. You have not addressed them at all, and rely on arguments which suppose those actions hadn't occurred.

will they? and if they elect someone you don't like - someone who doesn't quite come up to your standards - a military coup will sort it out.

I would have supported Morsi (and did in a few arguments here) as long as he didn't trash the system that elected him. Instead, he chose to decree he was completely above the law. That's a dictator, and he should have been removed. I congratulate the Egyptians on doing the right thing in that specific case.

and it's all to the good because, as we all know, history is a continuous process of improvement. and besides, you can see the future, despite knowing nothing about the past.

History is a good tool to help us approach the future. Learning from the past to avoid making the same mistakes, and undestanding why things come to be.

Your argument here is extremely hypocritical, because you are the one claiming to know for certain what the result of a specific event will be. I'm claiming it's very difficult to know the outcome of any revolution, but that when examining the course of human history, revolutions have on the whole lead to wider distribution of power and increased personal liberties. Even though specific cases were terrible (like Khmer Rouge).

[I AM MOBIUS]

"mass ethinic cleansings/genocides/destruction" ... you mean like when Saddam was gassing his own people, building rape palaces, and starting wars with neighbors? The thing you fear is the foregone conclusion of (and generally speaking, a condition of) the the option you think is best.

Only against people that openly attacked his regime...

Oh and during a time when the US supported him. Not to mention the fact that he couldn't have gassed the Kurds without western help.

I am not saying the US (or West and Soviets/Russia in general) are blameless. Quite the opposite. Most of the problems you list started with or were greatly exacerbated by colonialism and the retarded lines and puppet dictators we left behind afterwards. Support for oppressive regimes and flooding arms into the region has probably ensured it's going to be a ****ty place for a long time to come. As long as we continue doing that, there will likely be no end to the ****ty state of affairs. Because we're strong and they are weak in a military and economic sense.

We should instead be using our strength to increase prosperity and offer a carrot to those who distribute power.

No, this right now is clearly part of western doctrine: keep everyone else weak and fighting amongst themselves whilst you and your allies get rich arming both sides...

That is the reality you've signed up to.

Not to mention ISIS is created and flourishes under the policies you espouse...

You're doing well so far.

That's the point. The dictators you are claiming are the best option ... are the reason for the options you fear. They have forced the opposition into being ever more extremist, and demonstrably haven't been able to contain that opposition.

Not best, least worst. It is the pragmatic option. Not really, the opposition seem to be quite happy being extremist without the help of the dictators.

What are you going to have us do? Glass the place over with nukes? Because supporting and arming oppressive regimes has clearly failed.

I want you to come up with a series of tangible points as to why you think that Iraq, Syria and Libya are better off now than they were before. But you can't. I want a tangible solution to Afghanistan and Somalia too, but you can't come up with one either. I want to know why you think that Lee Kuan Yew was such an evil bastard too...

Again, I'm not talking about supporting and arming oppressive regimes - I just don't see why you have such an ideological hard on for being against them when the alternative is far worse!

Hamas is another example of oppression forcing people to extremism.

Yes, and Hamas is democratically elected, so ideologically you support their existence.

[kentonio]

Aeson is basically saying everything I want to, but..

What is the alternative, you guys? Especially considering that your governments are quite happy to support countless dictatorships/autocrats and strongmen around the world now and before when it suited them. Quite happy to topple loads of democracies when the people have voted for the wrong people etc...

Whoah there tiger, unless you renounced your citizenship recently, that is 'our governments', not 'your governments'. Oh and given the number of words I've wasted here in the past pointing out that most of the problems in the ME are down to botched western intervention, its kind of funny that you'd try and paint me as being on the other side of that fence.

Sometimes the least worst alternative is the best alternative. It doesn't mean it's palatable, it's just the way it is.

No, it's not just the way it is. It's just easy for some westerner to sit in their nice democracy and talk about how the people actually living under dictatorships should be glad they don't have to risk their lives fighting for a better future. If dictatorship was better than the chaos of revolution, then don't you think we might have seen a few less of the bloody things over the years?

[C0ckney]

Like I said, you're very short-sighted. The reality is it may be decades before Libya can get to a point where the problems that fomented under Gaddafi can be addressed and dissipated. Gaddafi's rule (and the monarchy that came before it, and the colonial rule before that) demonstrably lead to the current situation. Pretending the current situation is "sans Gaddafi influence" is ridiculous.

In any case, it's an intellectually dishonest comparison. A proper comparison would be whether or not the current state of affairs would be better if Gaddafi had managed to maintain control. The country was going into the ****ter either way. That's an effect civil wars have.

i'll take that mass of nonsense and deflection as 'no improvements since gaddafi's overthrow'.

You are the one relying completely on vague assertions. I have addressed specifics like Morsi's actions in office. You have not addressed them at all, and rely on arguments which suppose those actions hadn't occurred.

this is just taking what i said, turning it around and saying 'no, you'.

Your argument here is extremely hypocritical, because you are the one claiming to know for certain what the result of a specific event will be. I'm claiming it's very difficult to know the outcome of any revolution, but that when examining the course of human history, revolutions have on the whole lead to wider distribution of power and increased personal liberties. Even though specific cases were terrible (like Khmer Rouge).

and here again. why don't you try making a real argument?

I would have supported Morsi (and did in a few arguments here) as long as he didn't trash the system that elected him. Instead, he chose to decree he was completely above the law. That's a dictator, and he should have been removed. I congratulate the Egyptians on doing the right thing in that specific case.

History is a good tool to help us approach the future. Learning from the past to avoid making the same mistakes, and undestanding why things come to be.

you were wrong about egypt then and you're still wrong now. a good starting point might be learning about history in the first place, instead of starting with your opinion and trying to bend the facts to fit that, or just plain ignoring them when inconvenient.

[Aeson]

Only against people that openly attacked his regime...

Or maybe a father who didn't want his daughter raped. Or the daughter who had been raped so much she wasn't worth keeping around longer. Or someone who tried to suggest a different form of government. Or someone he didn't like for any reason. Or if they were the wrong ethnicity.

Oh and during a time when the US supported him. Not to mention the fact that he couldn't have gassed the Kurds without western help.

I think you've devolved into arguing against yourself. On one hand you are claiming we need dictators to put down these people. On the other hand you are attacking the US for helping to keep your preferred.

No, this right now is clearly part of western doctrine: keep everyone else weak and fighting amongst themselves whilst you and your allies get rich arming both sides...

Something I've already argued against.

That is the reality you've signed up to.

No, but it is something you support. Because most of those we are (and have been) arming are authoritarian regimes.

Not to mention ISIS is created and flourishes under the policies you espouse...

ISIS formed in Syria. Assad is still dictator there. yes, they moved into Iraq in the power vaccum left when we abandoned it. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq with the plan we had. But I won't shed any tears for Saddam. Only for our support for him, and the horrors that lead to.

Not best, least worst.

Irrelevant waffling. The least worst is the best. That's simply what the words mean. Your desire to pretend one is different than the other clearly shows how weak your position is. You have to hide behind euphamisms designed to try to divorce yourself from those dictators you think are the best option.

It is the pragmatic option. Not really, the opposition seem to be quite happy being extremist without the help of the dictators.

Given that the whole region has been rife with dictators for most of history, it's kinda ridiculous to claim any of the groups there formed without the influence of dictators.

I want you to come up with a series of tangible points as to why you think that Iraq, Syria and Libya are better off now than they were before.

Like I pointed out to cockney, this is an intellectually dishonest comparison. Libya is where Gaddafi left it. Syria is where Assad has lead (and currently leads) it. Iraq's current problems are a hodgepodge of influences, but with Saddam's regime being a major contributor.

A dictator who drives their country into the abyss is something you seem to t hink is a good thing ... because you compare the relatively better time before the dictator had driven the country all the way into the abyss with the abyss the dictator eventually drove the country into. It's ridiculous to try to divorce cause and effect like that.

But you can't. I want a tangible solution to Afghanistan and Somalia too, but you can't come up with one either.

Do you have a tangible solution to Afghanistan and Somalia? The taliban were an oppressive regime, you should have supported them because it's so much worse to not have an oppressive regime, right? I suppose you think we should arm some sociopath and help him kill anyone who resists his rule? Because that seems to be your preferred option in other cases.

Some things we definitely should do in regards to Afghanistan:

- legalize drug production (in the US and anywhere else) to take the money out of the hands of warlords
- stop terrorizing Afghan citizens with drone strikes.
- try to avoid training anymore terrorists to fight our enemies in the future

We've made so many mistakes over the years that there's not much hope for a quick solution. We could spend a few trillion building infrastructure and goodwill there while providing ample security forces for a couple decades for it all to take root ... but I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell that we would actually choose to do it.

I want to know why you think that Lee Kuan Yew was such an evil bastard too...

He wasn't as evil a bastard as Saddam, Assad, or Gaddafi. Still imprisoning people without charges for decades isn't a nice thing of course. I'm sure you'd love it if it happened to you?

Singapore would be better off with a democratic government that promotes personal freedoms rather than restricts them. None of the good things Lee Kuan Yew did require a dictator do them. Only the bad things.

Again, I'm not talking about supporting and arming oppressive regimes - I just don't see why you have such an ideological hard on for being against them when the alternative is far worse!

The alternative to oppressive regimes is not far worse. It is much better. The only problem with removing an oppressive regime is if another oppressive regime rises up to take it's place. In which case the right answer is to remove it as well.

Yes, and Hamas is democratically elected, so ideologically you support their existence.

Yes, I support their existence. Just as I support the existence of the US democracy even though it results in asshats taking office and doing horrible things sometimes. I don't support some of Hamas' methods. I can say this about the US as well.

I'm sure if the Palestinians, the US, and the Welsh all had dictators things would be much better. Right?

[Aeson]

i'll take that mass of nonsense and deflection as 'no improvements since gaddafi's overthrow'.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand why your question was at best pointless?

Gaddafi's rule demonstrably lead to the revolution. At that point you had a civil war and the country was going to get worse no matter who won in the end. That's what happens in wars. People die. Infrastructure gets destroyed. The economy suffers. Whether it was Gaddafi standing at the end, or in a grave, the situation in Libya was going to have degraded. Gaddafi is as responsible for that as anyone. (And more than perhaps anyone since colonial times.)

The applicable comparison would be what would Libya be like now if Gaddafi had won the civil war vs what it is like now that Gaddafi is rotting in the ground. That's an extremely hard question to answer because we don't get to see both results. You want to compare before the civil war to after it and pretend like you could magically have Gaddafi indefinitely without the civil war. It's ignorant of the indisputable fact that Gaddafi was leader when the civil war started.

This is why instead of relying on absurd crystal ball readings, I look to the general course of human history. Over that long-term view ... throwing off oppression has resulted in a huge net increase in personal freedoms in this world. There's no reason to suspect that trend will change.

We know there are forms of government that are suuperior to Gaddafi's ****. The only way to get to them though was to first get rid of Gaddafi. (Time would have resulted in that eventually in any case.)

this is just taking what i said, turning it around and saying 'no, you'.

The difference is I made several substantive arguments alongside it, while you make a few vague quips and run away from anything substantive.

For instance, I have mentioned Morsi's decree that he was above the law a couple times. You have ignored it to pretend that he was simply a democratically elected official doing his job to try to paint me as inconsistent. You have not addressed whether or not Morsi did so. You've just ignored it completely.

and here again. why don't you try making a real argument?

I address the hypocritical nature of your statement about seeing the future, specifically in response to that statement. If you don't want your stupidity addressed, don't post it.

you were wrong about egypt then and you're still wrong now.

No, I am consitently right about it. It will always be a good thing if Egyptians (or anyone) throws off oppressive governments.

a good starting point might be learning about history in the first place, instead of starting with your opinion and trying to bend the facts to fit that, or just plain ignoring them when inconvenient.

All you're saying is "learn about history, you're wrong". It's a laughably weak argument.

[C0ckney]

yes there was a civil war in libya. gaddafi was winning said civil war and it was fears about what he might do upon crushing it that provoked the western intervention that led to his fall. no one disputes any of this, but well done for restating at great length what has already been said in this thread.

we know what gaddafi's rule looked like; we have 40 odd years of evidence. so of course we can make some reasonable assumptions about what the future under him would have been like. the only one trying to use a crystal ball is you by saying that "[libyans] shouldn't accept a dictator ... it is always a good thing to throw them off." and then when asked to produce some evidence for this view in light of what's happened since gaddafi's ouster "it may be decades". brilliant.

The difference is I made several substantive arguments alongside it

i can't remember you ever making a substantive argument i'm afraid. as i explained to at the time in detail you were/are wrong about morsi, and instead of checking your facts, you are just dishonestly repeating the nonsense you posted at the time.

what happened was that morsi claimed full powers until a new constitution was approved (and that in itself was very complicated and held up by the judiciary still loyal to the old regime). following protests he backed down. later a new constitution was passed by the elected parliament and then approved by 64% of the voters, although the turnout IIRC was only around 30%. several parties and the church withdrew from the constitutional committee. protests started on the 28th june, followed a big protest on the 30th. the army then steps in demanding that morsi resigns. the deadline passes and the coup d'etat is launched on the 3rd july.

for some reason you avoided and continue to avoid calling the coup a coup, preferring to employ euphemisms that are in keeping with your level of honesty.

[Aeson]

we know what gaddafi's rule looked like; we have 40 odd years of evidence. so of course we can make some reasonable assumptions about what the future under him would have been like.

We know that Gaddafi's rule lead to a civil war. As you say, that is indisputable. What would have come after the civil war is not clear. You want to pretend it would somehow magically not affect the country if Gaddafi had won, but that is ignoring the effects of civil war.

The negative effects of his regime will be felt for decades to come.

While there are other stumbling blocks on the way to a free and prosperous society for the Libyan people, at least they got rid of one of them. Hopefully they will get rid of the rest. Which probably requires a two or three state solution.

i can't remember you ever making a substantive argument i'm afraid.

Then you have a very poor memory. For instance I argued that Francis was a dictator. That Gaddafi's rule had lead to a civil war. These are things even you accept as facts.

There are other arguments which are substantive in nature (eg. dealing with facts) that we disagree about, like Morsi and the causes nature of the revolution (or coup if you prefer, the label you give it doesn't bother me. It was the overthrow of Morsi's government by the military, no one is disputing that.)

[kentonio]

we know what gaddafi's rule looked like; we have 40 odd years of evidence. so of course we can make some reasonable assumptions about what the future under him would have been like. the only one trying to use a crystal ball is you by saying that "[libyans] shouldn't accept a dictator ... it is always a good thing to throw them off." and then when asked to produce some evidence for this view in light of what's happened since gaddafi's ouster "it may be decades". brilliant.

Ah, so on one hand it's fine to watch a dictator oppress his people for 40 years, but asking for a reasonable length of time for the revolutionaries to establish stability is some huge unreasonable position?

[I AM MOBIUS]

Ah, so on one hand it's fine to watch a dictator oppress his people for 40 years

To me, it's about pragmatism. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In terms of dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad, generally speaking if you behaved, you were fine - or you could also leave. None of these dictators could really afford to go around killing people for the sake of it as their power bases were/are minority ones.

But the fact of the matter is that they presided over secular nations which had probably the most equal rights for women and least religious strife of any of the nations across the region. All that is destroyed now.

Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore was, in effect, a dictator. Now his son's in charge. Are we to suddenly invade Singapore and effect regime change there?

but asking for a reasonable length of time for the revolutionaries to establish stability is some huge unreasonable position?

Afghanistan: 37 years and counting, and that's with Western help.

Iraq: 12 years and counting, again with Western 'help' overseeing an anarchistic bloodbath where hundreds of thousands have been killed; women are firmly second class citizens again and entire civilisations that have lasted thousands of years are suffering from genocidal attempts to snuff them out...

Ask a Christian or Yazidi or Assyrian, or whoever, in countries as they're being butchered to death, whether they prefer their 'freedom' now, or the status quo as it was before, and I wonder what they'd say?

Now, if you turned around and said to these people that are daily dying in their droves - being tortured, persecuted for their religion or race or sex - women being sold as sex slaves - "look, we ****ed up your country, so while it returns to normal, everyone who wants to can come and live in our nice, shiny, peaceful country", I'd understand that.

But then, you're a tory, and we all know where you stand on refugees and immigration.