Staggering numbers on Syria..

[I AM MOBIUS]

No one here is defending dictatorships, it's just that the alternative in these countries that the West has destabilised is far worse than these dictators could have ever done.

If you have such a hard on against dictatorships, there's about 20 around the world for you to 'regime change', not to mention a ton of monarchs in power that are basically the same thing. Many of which are actively supported by the West, so even our own govts don't agree with you - unless it suits them.

Not to mention the fact that there's plenty of democracies in the world that are more than capable of being worse than dictatorships when it comes to war crimes, such as the US and US in their illegal invasion of Iraq...

In an inequal world, surely it is far better to be striving for a relatively stable world where people are better off, than the strife and carnage of what is happening in the world today.

I suppose your 'success story' is the break up of Yugoslavia after the death of another dictator, Tito. Though it is interesting to point out that the major belligerent was democratically elected...

Also interesting to note that ultimately it broke up into 7 separate states...

[kentonio]

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

'Western help'? Ha, that's funny stuff.

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...

You mean the exact kind of western interference that I've spent the whole thread arguing against? Thanks for making my point.

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

You have absolutely no idea where I stand on refugees and immigration.

[Thoth]

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...

[I AM MOBIUS]

'Western help'? Ha, that's funny stuff.

You're the anti-dictatorship person. So, by definition, you are in agreement with the West's interventions with Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya

You mean the exact kind of western interference that I've spent the whole thread arguing against? Thanks for making my point.

Er, your point? How can you be arguing against this AND be for the fact that these dictators have been toppled!?

You have absolutely no idea where I stand on refugees and immigration.

You're a tory, I know what the standard tory response is to refugees and immigration. Kindly enlighten me on where you stand, because you haven't been so far...

Let's see: you're for military intervention to topple dictators - but, um, you've "spent the whole thread arguing against" it...

What is your alternative, Kent, cos I ain't seeing one...

Oh and PS, nice work cherrypicking the 10% or so of my posts that you feel you can argue against (ineffectively, I might add) and ignoring all the inconvenient stuff that you have no counter against...

[I AM MOBIUS]

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.

You're the one in favour of the fact that these dictatorships have been toppled - what is that if it isn't 'botched western intervention'!?

You can't have it both ways, you know...

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?

Was Iraq a revolution? Would the revolution in Libya have succeeded without this western intervention that you're no longer in favour of?

The inconvenient truth for you is that this situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria are all down to varying levels of meddling by the west, ranging from outright regime change, to the more insidious kind affecting Syria.

Another inconvenient truth for you is that Egypt's revolution and fledgling democracy ended in a coup by the army - which isn't exactly democratic - but apparently something you were in favour of...

The 'democracy' in Egypt is about as democratic as the one that the Tunisians successfully revolted against.

You are guilty of gross double standards, Kent.

[kentonio]

You're the anti-dictatorship person. So, by definition, you are in agreement with the West's interventions with Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya

Only if you take a really simplistic view of it. I was and remain completely supportive of toppling all those dictators (Afghanistan for very different reasons), because we installed or helped perpetuate the regimes in place there. We had a debt all across the middle east for our original colonisation and partitioning of the place, and our later meddling. That does not mean I approve either of the form that intervention took, nor of our continuing meddling after the fact. I have absolutely no problem for instance with the toppling of Hussain, but the fact the post invasion planning was so hideously and pathetically carried out is solely on those responsible and those who carried on supporting them once it became apparent how deeply flawed their actions were. There were good solutions that would have avoided the majority of the hundreds of thousands of deaths.

What I'm certainly not in favour of, is toppling a dictatorship, then ****ing the place up because we insist they have to form their new country in a way that is ideal to us, and then after the place goes up in flames and the extremists appear to start attacking again. That is really naively stupid.

Oh and PS, nice work cherrypicking the 10% or so of my posts that you feel you can argue against (ineffectively, I might add) and ignoring all the inconvenient stuff that you have no counter against...

Please. Aeson answered most of the stuff I cared about, and I picked up on the rest. If you have any particular points that we haven't already answered, feel free to point them out.

Another inconvenient truth for you is that Egypt's revolution and fledgling democracy ended in a coup by the army - which isn't exactly democratic - but apparently something you were in favour of...

The 'democracy' in Egypt is about as democratic as the one that the Tunisians successfully revolted against.

You are guilty of gross double standards, Kent.

Was I in favour of it? I don't recall taking any position at all on it. Quote please to refresh my memory.

[kentonio]

You're a tory, I know what the standard tory response is to refugees and immigration. Kindly enlighten me on where you stand, because you haven't been so far...

I haven't been what so far? Enlightening? Have you ever actually asked me before now?

I have absolutely no problem with high immigration or indeed letting in refugees. The figures show that immigration brings in money, it doesn't cost it plus its just the decent humane thing to do. I assume there needs to be some level of control over welfare etc to ensure that balance remains positive, but I don't have anything like the knowledge or training to say where that level should be.

I also think we should invest in language support though, and I don't have any issue with requiring people to speak English after a period of several years to ease integration from both sides. I think what we knew as multi-culturalism was actually a series of quite poorly thought out policies that encouraged ghettoization rather than integration, but the answer there is to help integration, not close the doors.

[kentonio]

You also never actually asked me what I'd be voting this time. I'm actually out of the country so I won't be voting, but if I was for the first time in my life it wouldn't be for the Conservative party.

[C0ckney]

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?

this is very strange interpretation of what i wrote. i said that we know what gaddafi's rule was like because we have 40 odd years of it to look at. what i have asked for, and you and aeson have completely failed to provide, is evidence, based upon the 3.5 years since his ouster, that the 'revolutionaries' can improve things in libya, or as you put it, establish stability. i fear it will be a long time and a lot of silly word games before you produce any.

[kentonio]

this is very strange interpretation of what i wrote. i said that we know what gaddafi's rule was like because we have 40 odd years of it to look at. what i have asked for, and you and aeson have completely failed to provide, is evidence, based upon the 3.5 years since his ouster, that the 'revolutionaries' can improve things in libya, or as you put it, establish stability. i fear it will be a long time and a lot of silly word games before you produce any.

You're making exactly the same ridiculous argument as creationists do when they ask why we can't watch evolution happening. **** takes time for goodness sake.

[C0ckney]

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.

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. it's hard to see how you think this backs up your argument, but i suppose when the only other thing you have is the vague nonsense in your third paragraph then you have to make do.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

[C0ckney]

You're making exactly the same ridiculous argument as creationists do when they ask why we can't watch evolution happening. **** takes time for goodness sake.

yes i'm sure it will happen; it's just around the corner, if we all just close our eyes and keep believing...

[kentonio]

yes i'm sure it will happen; it's just around the corner, if we all just close our eyes and keep believing...

Okay, we should never try anything that can lead people to freer better lives, because it's better to cower under the table like a dog while a dictator determines the future of you, your family and everyone else you know. Oh and if he decides he's going to rape your wife or sister, or murder your brothers or parents, that's just a price worth paying eh?

[C0ckney]

ken, seriously do you have any real argument to make as opposed to this emotional nonsense?

my argument is based on sound utilitarian principles. people enjoyed much better lives under gaddafi than they do now. his removal led directly to this worsening of people's lives. furthermore, people's lives in libya (those who haven't fled that is) are likely to deteriorate in the foreseeable future. this is based on the current situation with a worsening civil war, economic collapse, shortages of basic goods and the increasing radicalisation of the various armed groups.

your arguments are based on...well what, exactly? a vague hope that things will improve, someday, somehow, by some means or other because, you know, dictators are bad. perhaps you could flesh it out a bit, as i have repeatedly asked you to do.

[kentonio]

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.