What did I ever do to you?

[Aeson]

In 19th century, they were present on the ground and were trying to "develop" those colonies in whatever misguided way they thought was appropriate.

That's meaningless. Everyone is trying to "develop" the regions they try to influence in some way.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria... and look at them now, while we cannot measure "pound for pound", it is certainly coceivable that they were not in such dire straits in 19th century either. Their tribal societies under imperialist rule (Ottoman mostly), while not peak of human development, were still stable and you did not have wholesale slaughter that you have today in those countries which the west "touched" with it's mighty bombs during the last decade and a half.

Where we get involved rivers of blood flow.

You seem to be white-washing everyone else's history to pretend things were better before to overemphasize the wrongs done by the West. The very weird part is you are also white-washing the history of the West to do it.

The Ottomans aren't a good example to rest your argument on. For one, ISIS basically dreams of being like the Ottomans, ruling over a vast caliphate they conquered by the sword. So you're pointing to the formation of ISIS as the worst thing while claiming the Ottomans weren't as bad as the West's influence that helped ISIS gain ground, even though the Ottomans did what ISIS would do if it got the chance. (They likely won't get the chance to impact the world as much as the Ottomans did). The Ottomans also weren't really 19th century colonists. Their territory was mostly claimed centuries before. And the way they claimed it and administered it was horrific in many instances.

[Kidlicious]

I'm glad COckney likes the OP, so I don't have to bother reading it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Iraq, Syria and Libya were westernized secular states with high public services, such as education and healthcare. They had an unusual amount of women's rights, for the region. Like most of the world, they lived under dubious dictators. Now they are fragmented sh!tholes.

Well done, Coalition of the Willing, well done!

[Aeson]

Iraq, Syria and Libya were westernized secular states with high public services, such as education and healthcare. They had an unusual amount of women's rights, for the region. Like most of the world, they lived under dubious dictators. Now they are fragmented sh!tholes.

Syria and Libya were already both in a state of civil war before Western military intervention. Saddam had gone through his own civil war, gassing his opponents. They weren't "dubious", they are outright monsters and they all lead their nations into the current mess through their unwillingness to allow their political opponents to speak or participate. Syrian civil war started when THEIR OWN MILITARY started deffecting because they were being used to attack peaceful demonstrators. Assad is 100% responsible for that situation becoming violent. Gaddafi similarly could have kept the peace, he just wasn't willing to share any of the wealth or power, and so the people he was oppressing finally got fed up. Whether Gaddafi won or lost, Libya had lost because of Gaddafi's choice.

Saddam was worse than either of them, both to his own people and to the rest of the world. He was just a world class piece of **** who only couldn't be another Hitler because of he didn't have the military might to do it.

The (modern) West isn't blameless. But we are far more to blame for supporting/arming those asshats (and others like them) than for deposing them.

[Egbert]

I wish that "we" would stop "helping" other countries in the way we do.

The countries we "help" seem to become hellholes afterwards.

I particularly dislike "help" that involves bombing these countries.

[C0ckney]

For one, ISIS basically dreams of being like the Ottomans,

what a poor analogy. do you know anything about the ottomans?

and i see we're getting a rehash of your views on libya. to save time, let's get a few facts straight. libya under gaddafi was a reasonably developed state and had the highest HDI in africa; gaddafi was winning the civil war; western intervention caused him to be ousted; now libya is destroyed, and nearly 5 years on there's no end in sight. therefore, we can say that had we left things alone, libya and its people would be in a far better situation now than they are.

[C0ckney]

I wish that "we" would stop "helping" other countries in the way we do.

The countries we "help" seem to become hellholes afterwards.

I particularly dislike "help" that involves bombing these countries.

ah you see, you've got the terminology wrong. it's not 'bombing', it's 'dropping freedom and democracy from the air'.

[Egbert]

what a poor analogy. do you know anything about the ottomans?

and i see we're getting a rehash of your views on libya. to save time, let's get a few facts straight. libya under gaddafi was a reasonably developed state and had the highest HDI in africa; gaddafi was winning the civil war; western intervention caused him to be ousted; now libya is destroyed, and nearly 5 years on there's no end in sight. therefore, we can say that had we left things alone, libya and its people would be in a far better situation now than they are.

I agree

[Aeson]

what a poor analogy.

No.

do you know anything about the ottomans?

Yes.

and i see we're getting a rehash of your views on libya. to save time, let's get a few facts straight. libya under gaddafi was a reasonably developed state and had the highest HDI in africa; gaddafi was winning the civil war; western intervention caused him to be ousted; now libya is destroyed, and nearly 5 years on there's no end in sight. therefore, we can say that had we left things alone, libya and its people would be in a far better situation now than they are.

Yah, you have a hard on for dictators as long as they are able to kill enough of their own people to win the occasional civil war/coup/uprising. We know.

Gaddafi took the best hand anyone in Africa has been dealt and flushed it down the toilet.

[C0ckney]

No.

yes.

Yes.

no, and your post made that very obvious.

Yah, you have a hard on for dictators as long as they are able to kill enough of their own people to win the occasional civil war/coup/uprising. We know.

Gaddafi took the best hand anyone in Africa has been dealt and flushed it down the toilet.

we know that you believe in the modern white man's burden, which seems to involve invading and bombing countries until they're 'free' and 'democratic'.

[Aeson]

yes.

No.

no, and your post made that very obvious.

My claims about the Ottomans were that they conquered a large area militarily, and set up a caliphate ... as well as did some horrible things to the people under their control. Are you disputing any of those facts? Or are you just pretending I said something I didn't?

we know that you believe in the modern white man's burden, which seems to involve invading and bombing countries until they're 'free' and 'democratic'.

Your analysis is obviously flawed. To the point you claim the opposite of what my stated positions are. I have opposed all mentioned invasions and bombings. I just also oppose propping up dictators and pretending that their atrocities weren't atrocities.

You are simply grasping at straws to attack me as if I held the opposite positions because you want to suck Gaddafi's **** and I keep pointing out what a disgusting human being and incompetent leader he was.

[NICE MOBIUS]

I'm not sure what bubble Aeson is living in, but it's pure fantasy-land...

All of those countries have essentially been destroyed as a direct result of the West's intervention. Yes they all had/have pretty objectionable people in charge, but the West was complicit in most of the things that Aeson is pissed of about - you know, when all these guys were our allies?

Seems to me that the biggest enemies of the piece in all this is the West. I'm fairly confident that the ongoing destruction and misery that the West has caused each of these countries is FAR worse than these individuals ever managed on their worst days.

Ironically, if you're a Christian now, basically you're ****ed - because these guys are no longer able to protect all the minorities that are currently being ethnically cleansed.

Wake up - WE'RE the bad guys in the Middle East - always have been...

[C0ckney]

My claims about the Ottomans were that they conquered a large area militarily, and set up a caliphate ... as well as did some horrible things to the people under their control. Are you disputing any of those facts? Or are you just pretending I said something I didn't?

*sigh* your claim was:

ISIS basically dreams of being like the Ottomans

the ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-relgious empire that didn't generally go in for forced conversions, expelling or killing non-muslim inhabitants; in other words, totally unlike the islamic state.

Your analysis is obviously flawed. To the point you claim the opposite of what my stated positions are. I have opposed all mentioned invasions and bombings. I just also oppose propping up dictators and pretending that their atrocities weren't atrocities.

You are simply grasping at straws to attack me as if I held the opposite positions because you want to suck Gaddafi's **** and I keep pointing out what a disgusting human being and incompetent leader he was.

yes, you've 'opposed' them by saying how wonderful it is that the dictators were removed by western intervention and that people have a chance, at some unspecified and doubtless distant point in the future, of great lives, assuming they haven't all fled or died in the meantime. with opposition like that, who needs support!

[Aeson]

*sigh* your claim was:


the ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-relgious empire that didn't generally go in for forced conversions, expelling or killing non-muslim inhabitants; in other words, totally unlike the islamic state.

You took a sentence fragment you intellectually dishonest piece of ****. I clearly spelled out in what specific way they wanted to be like the Ottomans:

"For one, ISIS basically dreams of being like the Ottomans, ruling over a vast caliphate they conquered by the sword."

Also, look up the Armenian genocide.

yes, you've 'opposed' them by saying how wonderful it is that the dictators were removed by western intervention and that people have a chance, at some unspecified and doubtless distant point in the future, of great lives, assuming they haven't all fled or died in the meantime. with opposition like that, who needs support!

I haven't said it's wonderful. I've likened the quality of the situation now to the situation then. Given how derogatory I've been of the situation "then", it's very strange you would claim I am not being derogatory of the situation now. I just properly attribute the portion of what is ****ty now to the influence the dictators (deposed or still in power) have had on the situation, while you want to pretend the situation now is entirely the result of the West and the dictators themselves had nothing to do with it.

But yes, getting rid of dictators is in and of itself a good thing. Supporting dictators is in and of itself a bad thing. Saddam and Gaddafi in the ground, the Taliban out of power ... whether or not those lead to a better future is yet to be seen. But they had to go (or cease to be what they were) at some point for a better future to be possible.

[Aeson]

I'm not sure what bubble Aeson is living in, but it's pure fantasy-land...

One in which what I said is what I said.

Yes they all had/have pretty objectionable people in charge, but the West was complicit in most of the things that Aeson is pissed of about - you know, when all these guys were our allies?

I have consistently noted the damage the West has done to the region previous to the timeframes in question. However this discussion was about the effects of specific acts in specific timeframes. You are simply pretending the conversation is something it isn't, and pretending I've said things which are the opposite of what I've actually said.

Seems to me that the biggest enemies of the piece in all this is the West. I'm fairly confident that the ongoing destruction and misery that the West has caused each of these countries is FAR worse than these individuals ever managed on their worst days.

If you take the sum total of the West's actions over centuries vs any specific individual, it's certainly true. However it's a silly comparison to make since the only effect it can have is to try to white-wash the effect some really bad people have had on the region. Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban are all horrible in their own right.

Wake up - WE'RE the bad guys in the Middle East - always have been...

There is plenty of blame to go around. I have consistently attributed that blame where it belongs.