Another country starts to fall into Daesh control... Of course, it's the one where USA armed "opposition"

[Ellestar]

Using that reasoning there would be nothing by tyrants in the world. No people ever were ready to just spontaneously become free and peaceful. The influence of tyranny breeds radicalization and is diametrically opposed to keeping people from developing the social and political institutions necessary for a stable democracy. To this day even the most stable western democracies still have a long way to go.

That doesn't mean we should return to feudalism. Despots are always the first problem that needs to be solved.

Funny enough, "communist" fanacics like Mao or Trotsky had the same ideas IIRC. But we just can't leave our fellow workers and farmers under the rule of capitalists! We must free them.

Daesh thinks that they should free their brothers in faith so they'll be able to live by the laws of Sharia.

And "democratic" fanatics think that they should free people from tyranny and oppression of "dictators" so their own Banksters and Capitalists will be able to oppress people instead.

Fanatics are the same everywhere, aren't they? But the truth is that most of these "fanatics" just want to rule more lands and more people. It's actually a very simple test - do conquerors improve the quality of life in a newly conquered territories, or they don't. And, as everyone can see, in Afghanistan (compared to pre-Taliban times), Syria, Libya, Iraq and Ukraine life was much better before "democracies" "freed" them from "dictators" and put them in a path to a "stable democracy". That's because "democracies" don't care about all these people in the slightest, they just lie when they say they do it so to free people from "tyranny". But of course, why Banksters and Capitalists should care about common people? They care only about money.

[C0ckney]

That's not actually clear. It was bad under Saddam ...

yes they were, and it's a testament to the monumental stupidity and incompetence of both the decision to invade and its execution that things are worse 12 years on.

[Aeson]

Funny enough, "communist" fanacics like Mao or Trotsky had the same ideas IIRC. But we just can't leave our fellow workers and farmers under the rule of capitalists! We must free them.

Daesh thinks that they should free their brothers in faith so they'll be able to live by the laws of Sharia.

And "democratic" fanatics think that they should free people from tyranny and oppression of "dictators" so their own Banksters and Capitalists will be able to oppress people instead.

The difference is oppression is built into Communism and Sharia. It's a fundamental principle to the ideologies to force all people in the system to live life a certain way regardless of how they would choose to live for themselves. Democracies aren't necessarily free of oppression, and democratic states have sadly often tried to oppress other states or portions of their own populations, but at least there's nothing fundamental to the concept of democracy that requires oppression.

Fanatics are the same everywhere, aren't they?

No. There are qualitative differences that can't be denied in both the methods used and ideologies involved. For instance take religious fanatics. Some religious people go blow other people up. Some risk their lives to help feed other people. Both are fanatical about their beliefs, but there is a huge difference between those acts and people.

It's actually a very simple test - do conquerors improve the quality of life in a newly conquered territories, or they don't.

We should thus strive to have liberal democracies everywhere by your metric, because liberal democracies have demonstrably resulted in a higher quality of life than other systems.

And, as everyone can see, in Afghanistan (compared to pre-Taliban times), Syria, Libya, Iraq and Ukraine life was much better before "democracies" "freed" them from "dictators" and put them in a path to a "stable democracy". That's because "democracies" don't care about all these people in the slightest, they just lie when they say they do it so to free people from "tyranny".

That you use dictators and tyrants in quotes to describe Assad, Gaddafi, and Saddam illustrates very well how divorced from reality you are. They were dictators and tyrants.

And no one is claiming that Syria, Libya, or Iraq are stable democracies either. The people there would be much better off if they were stable democracies, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

But of course, why Banksters and Capitalists should care about common people? They care only about money.

Simple motivations allow for simple controls. We don't need to make anyone care about the "common people", just to make the "common people" more affluent. Because the system is very good at providing goods and services to affluent consumers.

[Aeson]

yes they were, and it's a testament to the monumental stupidity and incompetence of both the decision to invade and its execution that things are worse 12 years on.

I agree that going into Iraq wasn't a good idea.

But we can't say we made things worse/better there yet. Decades from now you can start to make an educated guess. At this point there's ISIS in control of some areas, Kurds in control of some areas, and Iraqis in control of some areas. How it plays out will determine whether it's better/worse than if they all were stuck under a genocidal dictator like Saddam.

[C0ckney]

of course we can. we can compare the situation then and the situation now. the only reason that anyone would make such a claim is because the comparison is fatal to their 'jam tomorrow' argument.

[NICE MOBIUS]

Anyone would have to be a total lunatic to make that comparison and claim that things are better in Iraq now!

Oh wait, at least Iraq is no longer suffering under crippling Western sanctions!

[Aeson]

of course we can. we can compare the situation then and the situation now.

The situation then is set in stone, but still very hard to quantify. What is the human suffering of a Rape Palace ... how about a family afraid that if they say the wrong thing they'll be killed? What about an ethnicity being attacked by their own government using chemical weapons? These are obviously terrible things, but it's hard to put them into a quantification to compare to something like ISIS cutting off some people's heads, shooting others, and generally threatening the region.

The situation now is fluid and not settled at all and virtually impossible to quantify even in a snapshot. ISIS controls a portion of Iraq. Iraqi's elected government controls a portion of Iraq. The Kurds control a portion of Iraq. If we look at those 3 portions, it's only the ISIS controlled portion which you can say is legitimately worse off now than it was under Saddam, and that may not even be the case. Saddam was extremely awful to his own people, both directly and indirectly, and had far more territory and people under his control (in Iraq). The Kurds are somewhat better off with Saddam gone. They've done better against ISIS than they were able to against Saddam. ISIS hasn't started using biological weapons on them yet either.

How it plays out will take many years, maybe decades to really find out.

The simple fact is that potential is an important aspect to "how things are". Otherwise you'd have to say that a person standing on the doorstep of a prison with their hands cuffed is the same situation whether they are heading into prison for a life sentence or being released in a few minutes. And that clearly isn't right. Right now we're finding out if Iraq will lose the cuffs, or be headed back into the prison (among other possibilities).

the only reason that anyone would make such a claim is because the comparison is fatal to their 'jam tomorrow' argument.

No there are many other reasons why a person could make such a claim. You must be a very stupid person to not be able to understand that simple and obvious fact.

In my case I made that claim because it the truth, but more importantly because it would grate in your dictator lovin' craw ...

[Aeson]

Anyone would have to be a total lunatic to make that comparison and claim that things are better in Iraq now!

My claim is you can't say it's quantifiably better or worse at this point. So have fun with your "it's better" strawman.

[NICE MOBIUS]

Um, yes you can. Certainly in Libya. The west intervened because Gaddafi was about to crush the rebels.

Others have proved that Libya was a very well developed nation that was actually spreading its wealth throughout Africa. Now it is destroyed. A nest for jihadis and lawless zone spewing refugees across southern Europe. All of these are facts.

Same with Iraq. Iraq was essentially stable again under Saddam despite the crippling and inhumane sanctions the WEST saw fit to collectively punish the Iraqi people with. Half the country is a lawless hellhole, with much of it under the control of ISIS. The whole country is undergoing an ethnically cleansing Balkanisation, and if you're a minority in the Sunni or Shi'a areas, you're **** out of luck!

Let's ask a Yazidi or a Christian in Iraq if they'd prefer a rewind to life under Saddam compared to now, huh?

More facts! But they don't fit your narrow world view as you're clearly in Aeson-mode and utterly unreceptive to reason. I've made my points - feel free to utterly ignore them and spout the same illogical nonsense you've been spouting thus far...

[Aeson]

Um, yes you can. Certainly in Libya.

I responded to your statement about Iraq. Which was the continuation of a line of discussion specifically about Iraq. Now you want to pretend it was about Libya. Libya is a different situation, so you should address my statements about Libya, not Iraq, if you want to talk about Libya. If you're still confused, feel free to ask what the difference between Iraq and Libya are.

The west intervened because Gaddafi was about to crush the rebels.

We shouldn't have gotten involved of course. But Gaddafi was still an asshat who drove his country into a civil war and burned all his bridges along the way. Pretending it would have quickly become hunky dory if he had wiped out his opposition is ignoring reality (and rather sick to pretend that killing a bunch of people youv'e been oppressing for decades is a "good" thing). You're no better than the people who thought Iraqis would welcome us with parades and flowers and go on to be a model democracy. The reality is Gaddafi was going to have a long, bloody conflict on his hands even once he "won" militarily. Either he was going to have to kill an awful lot of innocent people, or deal with asymetric warfare/terrorism from here on out.

Others have proved that Libya was a very well developed nation that was actually spreading its wealth throughout Africa. Now it is destroyed.

The wealth wasn't because of Gaddafi, it was because of the oil. It's not like they were drilling it out of his ass. Gaddafi is the one who wasted that wealth in driving his nation into civil war and international pariah status.

A nest for jihadis and lawless zone spewing refugees across southern Europe. All of these are facts.

It didn't just spontaneously become what it is. Gaddafi's oppressive rule fed the radicalization of elements within Libya. They were going to be there whether Gaddafi won or not. And it was going to continue to get worse, because that's what oppression does. Gaddafi supported terrorists, and had been exporting terrorists (ones he didn't support, but helped foment) for years.

Same with Iraq. Iraq was essentially stable again under Saddam despite the crippling and inhumane sanctions the WEST saw fit to collectively punish the Iraqi people with. Half the country is a lawless hellhole, with much of it under the control of ISIS. The whole country is undergoing an ethnically cleansing Balkanisation, and if you're a minority in the Sunni or Shi'a areas, you're **** out of luck!

Yah, just white-wash everything Saddam did. He invaded neighbours and was belligerent to the terms of peace to earn those sanctions, gassed, murdered, and institutionalized rape of his own people, all while keeping everyone (even his own command) in a constant state of fear so he could maintain control.

He has to take the blame for a lot of what happened in Iraq, both before and after he died. The West does too. You're just blind to one side of the story.

Let's ask a Yazidi or a Christian in Iraq if they'd prefer a rewind to life under Saddam compared to now, huh?

Yah sure, the place is a ****hole. But don't forget it was before too. Saddam killed plenty of people. Maybe we could ask one of the hundred thousand Kurds he killed?

The reality is it's not clearly better or worse than it was under Saddam. The final verdict is likely decades away still. There's some hope for the long run now, and still a lot of ****. Before there was Saddam and a lot of ****.

[NICE MOBIUS]

I responded to your statement about Iraq. Which was the continuation of a line of discussion specifically about Iraq. Now you want to pretend it was about Libya. Libya is a different situation, so you should address my statements about Libya, not Iraq, if you want to talk about Libya. If you're still confused, feel free to ask what the difference between Iraq and Libya are.

Yawn!

You made it clear in other posts and threads that your opinion encompasses Iraq, Syria and Libya.

We shouldn't have gotten involved of course. But Gaddafi was still an asshat who drove his country into a civil war and burned all his bridges along the way. Pretending it would have quickly become hunky dory if he had wiped out his opposition is ignoring reality (and rather sick to pretend that killing a bunch of people youv'e been oppressing for decades is a "good" thing). You're no better than the people who thought Iraqis would welcome us with parades and flowers and go on to be a model democracy. The reality is Gaddafi was going to have a long, bloody conflict on his hands even once he "won" militarily. Either he was going to have to kill an awful lot of innocent people, or deal with asymetric warfare/terrorism from here on out.

Why not? You seem happy we got involved in Iraq? Same difference. He was winning on all fronts, things are different in Libya, the political structure is essentially tribal. It's not an asymmetric conflict when you can simply round up the whole tribal - asymmetric on Gaddafi's side maybe.

The wealth wasn't because of Gaddafi, it was because of the oil. It's not like they were drilling it out of his ass. Gaddafi is the one who wasted that wealth in driving his nation into civil war and international pariah status.

You're not actually serious, are you!? What about that post about all the clear and concrete things that Gaddafi actually did for his country!? Of course it was based on oil, but he actually used the majority of his oil revenues for the good of the country - unlike for example the Saudis that generally embezzle it for the ruling elite!

And he didn't drive his nation to civil war.

There's really no point arguing with you if you're utterly ignorant of and refuse to open your eyes to even the most basic facts about Libya and Gaddafi.

It didn't just spontaneously become what it is. Gaddafi's oppressive rule fed the radicalization of elements within Libya. They were going to be there whether Gaddafi won or not. And it was going to continue to get worse, because that's what oppression does. Gaddafi supported terrorists, and had been exporting terrorists (ones he didn't support, but helped foment) for years.

Just like the Turks and the Saudis, but you're curiously quiet over them because they embarrass your cosy and deluded Western narrative!

Yah, just white-wash everything Saddam did. He invaded neighbours and was belligerent to the terms of peace to earn those sanctions, gassed, murdered, and institutionalized rape of his own people, all while keeping everyone (even his own command) in a constant state of fear so he could maintain control.

I'm not white-washing it. But the fact that you're changing the subject proves you're trying to move the goal posts. Again, another country high on the HDI index, secular and rights for women, minorities protected in the main - as long as no one got uppity...

Remember, he was the West's ally when he was gassing the Kurds and the West turned a blind eye - so really, you're the one guilty of white-washing history because of your irrational pro-Western stance.

He has to take the blame for a lot of what happened in Iraq, both before and after he died. The West does too. You're just blind to one side of the story.

No, actually that is you. Taking the entire argument literally and assuming that that is my position, when it isn't - because that's what I've been saying all along.

Yah sure, the place is a ****hole. But don't forget it was before too. Saddam killed plenty of people. Maybe we could ask one of the hundred thousand Kurds he killed?

Yes, because of GWI and Western sanctions. Iraq was one of the most modern cosmopolitan countries in the Middle East, until the West bombed them back into the stone age - twice!

Also, the Kurds were fighting for independence, so he fought back with chemical and conventional weapons supplied by the West.

The reality is it's not clearly better or worse than it was under Saddam. The final verdict is likely decades away still. There's some hope for the long run now, and still a lot of ****. Before there was Saddam and a lot of ****.

The reality is that it IS worse than it was under Saddam - because of all the reasons I've already outlined and you've seen fit to ignore!

In fact the clue is that you seem to think:

The final verdict is likely decades away still. There's some hope for the long run now, and still a lot of ****.

*EXASPERATED* We're not talking decades away (you think that decades of **** is WORTH it!!?), we're talking NOW! *EXASPERATED*

Why do you insist on arguing in such a retarded way...!?

[NICE MOBIUS]

*Addendum*

You're an idiot and not worth arguing with, hence this is my last post on the matter.

[Aeson]

*Addendum*

You're an idiot and not worth arguing with, hence this is my last post on the matter.

Hmmm ... I think you might actually be able to do it. Good luck

[Aeson]

You made it clear in other posts and threads that your opinion encompasses Iraq, Syria and Libya.

I never claimed they were the same in that specific regard. Obviously our interference in some has been more/less damaging than others.

Why not? You seem happy we got involved in Iraq? Same difference. He was winning on all fronts, things are different in Libya, the political structure is essentially tribal. It's not an asymmetric conflict when you can simply round up the whole tribal - asymmetric on Gaddafi's side maybe.

No, I adamantly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Iraq may not be worse off for the invasion, that remains to be seen, but we certainly are worse off because of it.

You're not actually serious, are you!? What about that post about all the clear and concrete things that Gaddafi actually did for his country!? Of course it was based on oil, but he actually used the majority of his oil revenues for the good of the country - unlike for example the Saudis that generally embezzle it for the ruling elite!

You're not setting a very high bar, and that list conveniently avoided all the negatives. He supported terrorism and had his own failed military excursions. He alienated and oppressed a significant portion of the populuation ot the point of civil war. He could have helped the country transition to a stable democracy, using the oil money to give everyone a better future. Instead he drove the country into civil war and alienated the international community.

And he didn't drive his nation to civil war.

He demonstrably did.

Just like the Turks and the Saudis, but you're curiously quiet over them because they embarrass your cosy and deluded Western narrative!

The discussion isn't about the Turks or the Saudis. Why would I discuss them? You're just grasping at straws here. I've been clear in the past I don't think we should support any dictators.

I'm not white-washing it. But the fact that you're changing the subject proves you're trying to move the goal posts.

I quoted and responded to your statement about Saddam and Iraq. Saddam and Iraq was the topic of my response. That's not changing the subject, it's addressing it. You're just displaying a lack of reading comprehension.

Remember, he was the West's ally when he was gassing the Kurds and the West turned a blind eye - so really, you're the one guilty of white-washing history because of your irrational pro-Western stance.

You're ridiculous. I'm the one constantly pointing out he gassed the Kurds. You're the one claiming Saddam's rule wasn't that bad!

Yes, because of GWI and Western sanctions. Iraq was one of the most modern cosmopolitan countries in the Middle East, until the West bombed them back into the stone age - twice!

White-washing. Saddam was clearly at fault for starting GWI.

Also, the Kurds were fighting for independence, so he fought back with chemical and conventional weapons supplied by the West.

White-washing. Yah, we were horrible for helping Saddam then. But Saddam is also horrible for what he did.

*EXASPERATED* We're not talking decades away (you think that decades of **** is WORTH it!!?), we're talking NOW! *EXASPERATED*

Potential plays a part in assessing the current situation. As I said, if you see a guy in hand cuffs on the prison steps ... it matters a lot whether he's headed in for a life sentence, or being processed for release. We simply can't say what the long reaching effects of the Iraq invasion will be, so can't adequately assess the current situation. Even without that unknown though, it's not clearly worse now than it was under Saddam. Part of Iraq is better off, part of it is worse off. There's been a lot of blood, but there was a lot of blood under Saddam too. There's some more hope and disorder now.

In any case Saddam and the West each deserve a large portion of blame for how Iraq is now.

[Ellestar]

The difference is oppression is built into Communism and Sharia. It's a fundamental principle to the ideologies to force all people in the system to live life a certain way regardless of how they would choose to live for themselves. Democracies aren't necessarily free of oppression, and democratic states have sadly often tried to oppress other states or portions of their own populations, but at least there's nothing fundamental to the concept of democracy that requires oppression.

Why do you oppose Communism and Democracy? Communism is the opposite of Capitalism. And your (and now our) real system of government is Capitalism, not Democracy - in practice people have no real power in neither Capitalism nor Communism (but in Communism in theory they should).

No. There are qualitative differences that can't be denied in both the methods used and ideologies involved. For instance take religious fanatics. Some religious people go blow other people up. Some risk their lives to help feed other people. Both are fanatical about their beliefs, but there is a huge difference between those acts and people.

I mean, the same as in fanatically believing that their ideas are the only right ideas, and they should be brought to everyone, by force. In that sense, "democracy" fanatics are exactly the same - they start coups and wars to bring "democracy", and it's widely supported by fanatics. Real reason to start these wars and do these coups is to make more profit for Capitalists, of course, but fanatics don't see it - they're fanatics, after all.

We should thus strive to have liberal democracies everywhere by your metric, because liberal democracies have demonstrably resulted in a higher quality of life than other systems.

Not really, "liberal democracies" (in fact, capitalist-controlled states) live well only by exploitation of people in the colonies (direct colonies or economic ones). You can't bring everyone to the same level of quality of life - if anything, world just doesn't have enough oil an metal to do so, just check consumption rates per capita in different countries.

Actually, that's what USSR tried to do, we built schools, power stations, hospitals and factories in all countries "going to communism" to bring others to our level (both internally in USSR, using production of RSFSR to improve other republics, and in foreign countries). Didn't work. Your capitalists don't even try. Recently capitalists started to exploit cheaper workforce in other countries, yeah, but keyword is "cheaper", they don't want to make workers richer, they want to make them poorer by paying less, so they don't exactly improve quality of life of the worker class, quite the opposite.

For example, what exactly did you built in Iraq, other than restoring the oil pumping (that is now owned by Western coprorations, so that's just capitalists making profit). What exactly did you do to improve the quality of life in Iraq, to give people jobs or education, after you conquered it?

That you use dictators and tyrants in quotes to describe Assad, Gaddafi, and Saddam illustrates very well how divorced from reality you are. They were dictators and tyrants.

Saddam, i guess so. Assad, i don't really know much about him, but at least the country was doing fine. Gaddafi, he was a good ruler, maybe even great, absolutely no reason to overthrow him by force.

And no one is claiming that Syria, Libya, or Iraq are stable democracies either. The people there would be much better off if they were stable democracies, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Especially if the West destroys their countries, of course it won't happen.

Simple motivations allow for simple controls. We don't need to make anyone care about the "common people", just to make the "common people" more affluent. Because the system is very good at providing goods and services to affluent consumers.

Oh come on. How a society where official religion is money can be stable in the long run?