Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

LIBYA
Living in any African country could have been classed worse than Libya. Check the WHO report here
http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_lby_en.pdf

https://globalciviliansforpeace.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-standard-of-living-in-libya/
Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World. END OF QUOTE
So while Gaddafi was never on a short list for the Nobel prize the replacement scenario is much worse.

So you think Saudi Arabia is a shining example of equality, justice and democracy because they have oil? I'll re-iterate the question... are you high?

Gadaffi had a sex dungeon underneath his complex where he routinely kept teenage sex slaves who were systematically kidnapped for Gaddafi's pleasure. When Gaddafi was done with them his generals got the sex slaves. This is not a pornographic novel or some sex fantasy. This actually happened.

He made having a regular job, or starting a company illegal. Everybody worked for Gaddafi. Everybody was spied upon. Nobody under Gaddafi had any freedom at all. The people were kept in constant fear.... all the time. It was systematic. Just like any fascist ruler he created a stratified society, where those belonging to the elite could commit pretty much any atrocity and get away with it. The guy makes Stalin and Hitler look good. Libya is what Pol Pot's Cambodia would have been if that country would have had oil.

SADDAM
No doubt he was as you said. Nonetheless for many years, he was a friend of the West and Germany sold him the Gas for the Kurds and the weapons to attack Iran. Now it’s even worse especially for the Christians

The West liked Saddam because they disliked Iran more. It was 100% a strategic choice. The West stopped liking Saddam when it became apparent that Iran was a well run Garden of Eden compared to Iraq.

ISIS
The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

or not

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you think Saudi Arabia is a shining example of equality, justice and democracy because they have oil? I'll re-iterate the question... are you high?

Gadaffi had a sex dungeon underneath his complex where he routinely kept teenage sex slaves who were systematically kidnapped for Gaddafi's pleasure. When Gaddafi was done with them his generals got the sex slaves. This is not a pornographic novel or some sex fantasy. This actually happened.

He made having a regular job, or starting a company illegal. Everybody worked for Gaddafi. Everybody was spied upon. Nobody under Gaddafi had any freedom at all. The people were kept in constant fear.... all the time. It was systematic. Just like any fascist ruler he created a stratified society, where those belonging to the elite could commit pretty much any atrocity and get away with it. The guy makes Stalin and Hitler look good. Libya is what Pol Pot's Cambodia would have been if that country would have had oil.

SADDAM
No doubt he was as you said. Nonetheless for many years, he was a friend of the West and Germany sold him the Gas for the Kurds and the weapons to attack Iran. Now it’s even worse especially for the Christians

The West liked Saddam because they disliked Iran more. It was 100% a strategic choice. The West stopped liking Saddam when it became apparent that Iran was a well run Garden of Eden compared to Iraq.

ISIS
The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

or not

The whole of Africa is a problem. Botswana is supposed to be less worse than the other states.
However the economic situation in Libya was destroyed by the West funding lynch mobs who are no better than him. The word to use is worse or less worse and not better or worse. Libya was in a transition to a democracy. Perhaps if Gaddafi was permitted to die in office a better leadership was more likely. Perhaps he could have been assassinated as a means to prevent a war.
All the West did was bought itself a lynch mob which turned on each other and the small country is fragmented into enclaves and fiefdoms. Thanks to the West there are most likely more rapes than before.

9/11 happened and the security forces were caught by surprise. in most cases these wont happen. Security is like fire fighting vs fire prevention. The latter is preferable. Always foresee the unforeseeable and expect the unexpected. That's what the US seems to be successfully doing now.

Why are we not interfering in Zimbabwe? It begins with O and ends in L. .

We have the American phrase "If its not broken don't fix it.
I may add "If its broken don't wreck it."

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wild dogs is a figure of speech to reflect their mentality.

Which is not a rebuttal at all. You're calling them animals.

Living in any African country could have been classed worse than Libya. Check the WHO report here
http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/ccsbrief_lby_en.pdf

https://globalciviliansforpeace.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/the-standard-of-living-in-libya/
Confirmed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), undernourishment was less than 5 %, with a daily per capita calorie intake of 3144 calories. (FAO caloric intake figures indicate availability rather than consumption).
The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya provided to its citizens what is denied to many Americans: Free public health care, free education, as confirmed by WHO and UNESCO data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO): Life expectancy at birth was 72.3 years (2009), among the highest in the developing World. END OF QUOTE
So while Gaddafi was never on a short list for the Nobel prize the replacement scenario is much worse.

The data you cite isn't relevant as it didn't reflect the situation at the time we decided to intervene. The Arab "Spring" movement had reached Libya, the rebels were threatening the country and Gaddafi was resorting to some pretty brutal things, bringing in outsiders because the army couldn't be counted on to carry out the orders against their own population. Past figures of nutritional levels has no bearing on whether the bullets are coming in now.

We stopped his brutality against his own people, his government fell. As with all the Arab "Spring" movements it was subverted by the Islamists.

SADDAM
No doubt he was as you said. Nonetheless for many years, he was a friend of the West and Germany sold him the Gas for the Kurds and the weapons to attack Iran. Now it’s even worse especially for the Christians

Irrelevant to the fact that the current problems are Sunni/Shia fighting.

The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

The Philippines police found a plot to bomb airliners. That's not the same as a plot to use them as kamikazes.

Sunni and Shia forces have always been at war, providing they are not also fighting each other.
We killed over one million civilians to stop him killing hundreds of his own people. He killed more in the past when Germany provided the Gas for the Kurds and also for the weapons.
The plot was the very same one which the hijackers executed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sunni and Shia forces have always been at war, providing they are not also fighting each other.
We killed over one million civilians to stop him killing hundreds of his own people. He killed more in the past when Germany provided the Gas for the Kurds and also for the weapons.
The plot was the very same one which the hijackers executed.

You keep blaming the US for actions that others did.

Most of those deaths were due to Sunni/Shia ethnic cleansing and fighting.

 

[Trausti]

Sunni and Shia forces have always been at war, providing they are not also fighting each other.
We killed over one million civilians to stop him killing hundreds of his own people. He killed more in the past when Germany provided the Gas for the Kurds and also for the weapons.
The plot was the very same one which the hijackers executed.

You keep blaming the US for actions that others did.

Most of those deaths were due to Sunni/Shia ethnic cleansing and fighting.

That is a peculiar penchant I've noticed; a view that the people in the Middle East lack independent agency or motivation and only act in response to the West. It's a soft bigotry. As if to say that Muslims and Arabs should be forgiven their transgressions because they can't help it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you think Saudi Arabia is a shining example of equality, justice and democracy because they have oil? I'll re-iterate the question... are you high?

Gadaffi had a sex dungeon underneath his complex where he routinely kept teenage sex slaves who were systematically kidnapped for Gaddafi's pleasure. When Gaddafi was done with them his generals got the sex slaves. This is not a pornographic novel or some sex fantasy. This actually happened.

He made having a regular job, or starting a company illegal. Everybody worked for Gaddafi. Everybody was spied upon. Nobody under Gaddafi had any freedom at all. The people were kept in constant fear.... all the time. It was systematic. Just like any fascist ruler he created a stratified society, where those belonging to the elite could commit pretty much any atrocity and get away with it. The guy makes Stalin and Hitler look good. Libya is what Pol Pot's Cambodia would have been if that country would have had oil.



The West liked Saddam because they disliked Iran more. It was 100% a strategic choice. The West stopped liking Saddam when it became apparent that Iran was a well run Garden of Eden compared to Iraq.

ISIS
The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

or not

The whole of Africa is a problem. Botswana is supposed to be less worse than the other states.
However the economic situation in Libya was destroyed by the West funding lynch mobs who are no better than him. The word to use is worse or less worse and not better or worse. Libya was in a transition to a democracy. Perhaps if Gaddafi was permitted to die in office a better leadership was more likely. Perhaps he could have been assassinated as a means to prevent a war.
All the West did was bought itself a lynch mob which turned on each other and the small country is fragmented into enclaves and fiefdoms. Thanks to the West there are most likely more rapes than before.

9/11 happened and the security forces were caught by surprise. in most cases these wont happen. Security is like fire fighting vs fire prevention. The latter is preferable. Always foresee the unforeseeable and expect the unexpected. That's what the US seems to be successfully doing now.

Why are we not interfering in Zimbabwe? It begins with O and ends in L. .

We have the American phrase "If its not broken don't fix it.
I may add "If its broken don't wreck it."

The 90'ies called. They want your preconceieved notions back. Africa has nearly all the fastest growing economies in the world. Yes, they also have the worst performers. But most of it is out of the woods now, and is going toward rapid expansion of wealth. Democracy is becoming increasingly stable. Nigeria for example, is fine and stable now. The biggest country!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

If you think Libya was in a transition to democracy you need to stop using drugs right now. That's like saying that North Korea was in a transition to democracy. Gaddafi talked massive amounts of bullshit just to make friends with other countries of the world. The reality was that it was all talk. Now after the fall of Gaddafi we also know this for a fact. His whole terror machine is now laid bare. Libya under Gaddafi was a disaster. He kept tribal conflicts alive and fed them. The result of pre-revolution Libya is all Gaddafi's fault. In hind-sight we know this was bound to happen whenever Gaddafi went. But sooner is better. Gaddafi was the worst possible ruler. In all ways. It'll sort itself out eventually. I'm sure of it. But with Gaddafi gone it is now at all possible. While before it wasn't.

I think you are correct in that we're not interfering in Zimbabwe because of the oil. But it wasn't until quite late that Mugabe really went bananas. And now he's ancient and old. I think the world is just waiting for him to die. It might sort itself out. Morgan Tzvangerai is in a position to capitalise on Mugabe's death. And if he does, Zimbabwe will sort itself out.

 

[angelo]

Libya was bad under Gaddaffi, but even more so today. It's a complete basket case, just like Iraq after deposing Saddam. Should the present dictator fall in Syria without a viable alternative dictator, that also will be worst than what it already is.

Putin can see that, but Obama doesn't want to know or is turning a blind eye to the situation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So you think Saudi Arabia is a shining example of equality, justice and democracy because they have oil? I'll re-iterate the question... are you high?

Gadaffi had a sex dungeon underneath his complex where he routinely kept teenage sex slaves who were systematically kidnapped for Gaddafi's pleasure. When Gaddafi was done with them his generals got the sex slaves. This is not a pornographic novel or some sex fantasy. This actually happened.

He made having a regular job, or starting a company illegal. Everybody worked for Gaddafi. Everybody was spied upon. Nobody under Gaddafi had any freedom at all. The people were kept in constant fear.... all the time. It was systematic. Just like any fascist ruler he created a stratified society, where those belonging to the elite could commit pretty much any atrocity and get away with it. The guy makes Stalin and Hitler look good. Libya is what Pol Pot's Cambodia would have been if that country would have had oil.



The West liked Saddam because they disliked Iran more. It was 100% a strategic choice. The West stopped liking Saddam when it became apparent that Iran was a well run Garden of Eden compared to Iraq.

ISIS
The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

or not

The whole of Africa is a problem. Botswana is supposed to be less worse than the other states.
However the economic situation in Libya was destroyed by the West funding lynch mobs who are no better than him. The word to use is worse or less worse and not better or worse. Libya was in a transition to a democracy. Perhaps if Gaddafi was permitted to die in office a better leadership was more likely. Perhaps he could have been assassinated as a means to prevent a war.
All the West did was bought itself a lynch mob which turned on each other and the small country is fragmented into enclaves and fiefdoms. Thanks to the West there are most likely more rapes than before.

9/11 happened and the security forces were caught by surprise. in most cases these wont happen. Security is like fire fighting vs fire prevention. The latter is preferable. Always foresee the unforeseeable and expect the unexpected. That's what the US seems to be successfully doing now.

Why are we not interfering in Zimbabwe? It begins with O and ends in L. .

We have the American phrase "If its not broken don't fix it.
I may add "If its broken don't wreck it."

The 90'ies called. They want your preconceieved notions back. Africa has nearly all the fastest growing economies in the world. Yes, they also have the worst performers. But most of it is out of the woods now, and is going toward rapid expansion of wealth. Democracy is becoming increasingly stable. Nigeria for example, is fine and stable now. The biggest country!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

If you think Libya was in a transition to democracy you need to stop using drugs right now. That's like saying that North Korea was in a transition to democracy. Gaddafi talked massive amounts of bullshit just to make friends with other countries of the world. The reality was that it was all talk. Now after the fall of Gaddafi we also know this for a fact. His whole terror machine is now laid bare. Libya under Gaddafi was a disaster. He kept tribal conflicts alive and fed them. The result of pre-revolution Libya is all Gaddafi's fault. In hind-sight we know this was bound to happen whenever Gaddafi went. But sooner is better. Gaddafi was the worst possible ruler. In all ways. It'll sort itself out eventually. I'm sure of it. But with Gaddafi gone it is now at all possible. While before it wasn't.

I think you are correct in that we're not interfering in Zimbabwe because of the oil. But it wasn't until quite late that Mugabe really went bananas. And now he's ancient and old. I think the world is just waiting for him to die. It might sort itself out. Morgan Tzvangerai is in a position to capitalise on Mugabe's death. And if he does, Zimbabwe will sort itself out.

The US could have waited for Ghadaffi to die as he was getting old. or if it was really concerned, simply arranged for someone to shoot him without cocking it up. The country was the most prosperous per head in Africa and this could have been maintained. That is to say just change the brain and let the public retain free healthcare, education. Now what the allies have done is make a bad situation much worse, with thousands of people getting killed. Now you have 5 main rivals plus numerous militias. You should also remember that much of the running of the domestic economy was put into the hands of his councils.
Agreed Iraq is worse than it was and so is Syria.

If you look at the rest of Africa, the chances of significant changes post Mugabe are not that good. The economy would possibly improve somewhat, given that it could not get much worse.

It is better to take over a country that is intact. The actions of the allies have been like trying to put out a fire by dousing it in kerosene.

Generally in war, the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this….For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” Sun Tzu

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sunni and Shia forces have always been at war, providing they are not also fighting each other.
We killed over one million civilians to stop him killing hundreds of his own people. He killed more in the past when Germany provided the Gas for the Kurds and also for the weapons.
The plot was the very same one which the hijackers executed.

You keep blaming the US for actions that others did.

Most of those deaths were due to Sunni/Shia ethnic cleansing and fighting.

Of course they are killing each other which the fringes were quite happy to do. Our interference only made things worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you think Saudi Arabia is a shining example of equality, justice and democracy because they have oil? I'll re-iterate the question... are you high?

Gadaffi had a sex dungeon underneath his complex where he routinely kept teenage sex slaves who were systematically kidnapped for Gaddafi's pleasure. When Gaddafi was done with them his generals got the sex slaves. This is not a pornographic novel or some sex fantasy. This actually happened.

He made having a regular job, or starting a company illegal. Everybody worked for Gaddafi. Everybody was spied upon. Nobody under Gaddafi had any freedom at all. The people were kept in constant fear.... all the time. It was systematic. Just like any fascist ruler he created a stratified society, where those belonging to the elite could commit pretty much any atrocity and get away with it. The guy makes Stalin and Hitler look good. Libya is what Pol Pot's Cambodia would have been if that country would have had oil.



The West liked Saddam because they disliked Iran more. It was 100% a strategic choice. The West stopped liking Saddam when it became apparent that Iran was a well run Garden of Eden compared to Iraq.

ISIS
The Philippines police discovered the 9/11 plot many years before it happened and the US did not respond. So while ISIS is not capable of doing what it claims it can, let’s not underestimate the havoc a handful of people can cause is a plane to crash into a building or kill dozens with a single detonation.

or not

The whole of Africa is a problem. Botswana is supposed to be less worse than the other states.
However the economic situation in Libya was destroyed by the West funding lynch mobs who are no better than him. The word to use is worse or less worse and not better or worse. Libya was in a transition to a democracy. Perhaps if Gaddafi was permitted to die in office a better leadership was more likely. Perhaps he could have been assassinated as a means to prevent a war.
All the West did was bought itself a lynch mob which turned on each other and the small country is fragmented into enclaves and fiefdoms. Thanks to the West there are most likely more rapes than before.

9/11 happened and the security forces were caught by surprise. in most cases these wont happen. Security is like fire fighting vs fire prevention. The latter is preferable. Always foresee the unforeseeable and expect the unexpected. That's what the US seems to be successfully doing now.

Why are we not interfering in Zimbabwe? It begins with O and ends in L. .

We have the American phrase "If its not broken don't fix it.
I may add "If its broken don't wreck it."

The 90'ies called. They want your preconceieved notions back. Africa has nearly all the fastest growing economies in the world. Yes, they also have the worst performers. But most of it is out of the woods now, and is going toward rapid expansion of wealth. Democracy is becoming increasingly stable. Nigeria for example, is fine and stable now. The biggest country!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

If you think Libya was in a transition to democracy you need to stop using drugs right now. That's like saying that North Korea was in a transition to democracy. Gaddafi talked massive amounts of bullshit just to make friends with other countries of the world. The reality was that it was all talk. Now after the fall of Gaddafi we also know this for a fact. His whole terror machine is now laid bare. Libya under Gaddafi was a disaster. He kept tribal conflicts alive and fed them. The result of pre-revolution Libya is all Gaddafi's fault. In hind-sight we know this was bound to happen whenever Gaddafi went. But sooner is better. Gaddafi was the worst possible ruler. In all ways. It'll sort itself out eventually. I'm sure of it. But with Gaddafi gone it is now at all possible. While before it wasn't.

I think you are correct in that we're not interfering in Zimbabwe because of the oil. But it wasn't until quite late that Mugabe really went bananas. And now he's ancient and old. I think the world is just waiting for him to die. It might sort itself out. Morgan Tzvangerai is in a position to capitalise on Mugabe's death. And if he does, Zimbabwe will sort itself out.

The US could have waited for Ghadaffi to die as he was getting old. or if it was really concerned, simply arranged for someone to shoot him without cocking it up. The country was the most prosperous per head in Africa and this could have been maintained. That is to say just change the brain and let the public retain free healthcare, education. Now what the allies have done is make a bad situation much worse, with thousands of people getting killed. Now you have 5 main rivals plus numerous militias. You should also remember that much of the running of the domestic economy was put into the hands of his councils.
Agreed Iraq is worse than it was and so is Syria.

If you look at the rest of Africa, the chances of significant changes post Mugabe are not that good. The economy would possibly improve somewhat, given that it could not get much worse.

It is better to take over a country that is intact. The actions of the allies have been like trying to put out a fire by dousing it in kerosene.

Generally in war, the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is inferior to this….For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” Sun Tzu

Gaddafi was building a dynasty. After him we'd have Saif Al-Islam and we'd have another Syria or North Korea. Ie nothing changes. So just waiting for Gaddafi to die is like letting it stay the same. That entire family had to go before we could even start evaluating options. That's where we're at now.

Gaddafi created a state that was completely dependent on one family to function. It wasn't a viable state on it's own. So leaving it intact was hard. And not really desireable.

Mugabes family is not really involved in politics. His children are monumental fuck-ups. Mugabes leadership style is to surround himself with people who can't threaten his power It also means they'll be useless after he dies. So not a huge threat Also, The Movement for Democratic Change is a thing and they're strong. So I'm not too worried of Zimbabwe falling apart post-Mugabe. It might not become democratic. But it's far from a disaster anyway. Plenty of room to nudge it in the right direction.

 

[barbos]

Gaddafi's sons were not complete nuts. If I remember what I read long time ago correctly one of the sons was actually a decent human being.
Among fucked-up countries (Iraq, SA, and even Syria) Libya was the least fucked-up. Gaddafi was more of a nut than tyrant.
Economy was booming, yes it was due to oil but unlike SA they were actually trying to develop other stuff.
Western naive desire to export their version of democracy to places which are not currently suited for it fucked it up.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gaddafi's sons were not complete nuts. If I remember what I read long time ago correctly one of the sons was actually a decent human being.
Among fucked-up countries (Iraq, SA, and even Syria) Libya was the least fucked-up. Gaddafi was more of a nut than tyrant.
Economy was booming, yes it was due to oil but unlike SA they were actually trying to develop other stuff.
Western naive desire to export their version of democracy to places which are not currently suited for it fucked it up.

The same was said of Assad. The thing is that people tend to over-emphasise individuals in power. Even dictators can't do anything. A stable system has to be mostly self-perpetuating. And any stable system, once in place, requires plenty of work to change. Typically, when a dictator gets it into their heads to try to move the country into a democratic direction, they're almost always killed. No dictatorship can survive if the only benefactors of the dictatorship is a single individual and his immediate family. People all the way down the pyramid is in some sense responsible for perpetuating the system. The system makes it into everybody's best interest to perpetuate the oppression or they will be punished by it.

A good example is Egypt. Dismantling the Mubarak machine and replacing it with a healthy modern democratic one ended up being a too high price to pay for people, and it went back to the old stable social structure, even without Mubarak being alive or in power.

Yes, western countries are naive. But they're naive regarding what it means to be a modern democratic country. It requires more than just freedom. It requires a whole host of social structures that we in the west built over 300 years before democracy managed to take root. These need to be built first. But as long as the sitting government does its best to destroy these, democracy will never happen.

What I think the west should do is to punish countries that aren't edging toward democracy. Just make them unstable and fall apart. And countries that are exhibiting positive developments are rewarded, regardless how horrible they are treating their people. It's a question of evolution. It's step by step

 

[whichphilosophy]

Gaddafi's sons were not complete nuts. If I remember what I read long time ago correctly one of the sons was actually a decent human being.
Among fucked-up countries (Iraq, SA, and even Syria) Libya was the least fucked-up. Gaddafi was more of a nut than tyrant.
Economy was booming, yes it was due to oil but unlike SA they were actually trying to develop other stuff.
Western naive desire to export their version of democracy to places which are not currently suited for it fucked it up.

The same was said of Assad. The thing is that people tend to over-emphasise individuals in power. Even dictators can't do anything. A stable system has to be mostly self-perpetuating. And any stable system, once in place, requires plenty of work to change. Typically, when a dictator gets it into their heads to try to move the country into a democratic direction, they're almost always killed. No dictatorship can survive if the only benefactors of the dictatorship is a single individual and his immediate family. People all the way down the pyramid is in some sense responsible for perpetuating the system. The system makes it into everybody's best interest to perpetuate the oppression or they will be punished by it.

A good example is Egypt. Dismantling the Mubarak machine and replacing it with a healthy modern democratic one ended up being a too high price to pay for people, and it went back to the old stable social structure, even without Mubarak being alive or in power.

Yes, western countries are naive. But they're naive regarding what it means to be a modern democratic country. It requires more than just freedom. It requires a whole host of social structures that we in the west built over 300 years before democracy managed to take root. These need to be built first. But as long as the sitting government does its best to destroy these, democracy will never happen.

What I think the west should do is to punish countries that aren't edging toward democracy. Just make them unstable and fall apart. And countries that are exhibiting positive developments are rewarded, regardless how horrible they are treating their people. It's a question of evolution. It's step by step

Clearly our attempts to interfere have so far ended up as a major fiasco with millions killed and tens of millions displaced with democracy even further less likely.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The same was said of Assad. The thing is that people tend to over-emphasise individuals in power. Even dictators can't do anything. A stable system has to be mostly self-perpetuating. And any stable system, once in place, requires plenty of work to change. Typically, when a dictator gets it into their heads to try to move the country into a democratic direction, they're almost always killed. No dictatorship can survive if the only benefactors of the dictatorship is a single individual and his immediate family. People all the way down the pyramid is in some sense responsible for perpetuating the system. The system makes it into everybody's best interest to perpetuate the oppression or they will be punished by it.

A good example is Egypt. Dismantling the Mubarak machine and replacing it with a healthy modern democratic one ended up being a too high price to pay for people, and it went back to the old stable social structure, even without Mubarak being alive or in power.

Yes, western countries are naive. But they're naive regarding what it means to be a modern democratic country. It requires more than just freedom. It requires a whole host of social structures that we in the west built over 300 years before democracy managed to take root. These need to be built first. But as long as the sitting government does its best to destroy these, democracy will never happen.

What I think the west should do is to punish countries that aren't edging toward democracy. Just make them unstable and fall apart. And countries that are exhibiting positive developments are rewarded, regardless how horrible they are treating their people. It's a question of evolution. It's step by step

Clearly our attempts to interfere have so far ended up as a major fiasco with millions killed and tens of millions displaced with democracy even further less likely.

The same people said the same in Europe the entire 19'th century. It took over a hundred years of carnage and instability before democracy. Both Napoleon and Hitler were the results of Enlightenment ideas of freedom and democracy. Sometimes the successful road isn't a straight line. The mess in the Middle-East is not even close to the mess we had in Europe when we were trying to democratise. The transitional systems that were the most successful ended up being the step-by-step democratisation processes. Every step of the way created a new stable system of government. This is what happened in Sweden and England. In Sweden we were on the brink of communist take-over for a bit less than a hundred years. This constant pressure of socialists created a slow evolution of moving power further and further down the ladder until we had full democracy. In the UK it was a fear of becoming France 2. A constant pressure of social unrest. None of these processes were smooth or pretty. But these are among the smoothest and prettiest.

I wouldn't call it a fiasco by a long shot. Monarchs/dictators in Europe who refused to budge and be a part of the step-by-step reforms were all toppled by violent revolution. France, Russia, Spain. The result of these were total and absolute carnage. This is what happened to Iraq, Syria and Libya. The problem wasn't western intervention. The problem was Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi. And we shouldn't take the blame for it. This is what democratisation looks like. It ain't pretty. It's rarely pretty .

 

[barbos]

I wouldn't call it a fiasco by a long shot. Monarchs/dictators in Europe who refused to budge and be a part of the step-by-step reforms were all toppled by violent revolution. France, Russia, Spain.

Small technical correction here, Russian revolution was caused by WW1 and German money and intelligence service meddling. Essentially german "CIA" of that era is responsible for creation of ISIS Soviet Union. Of course germans did what they did because they were losing WW1.
What I am saying Tsarism was not that bad and there were no internal reasons for revolution at the time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wouldn't call it a fiasco by a long shot. Monarchs/dictators in Europe who refused to budge and be a part of the step-by-step reforms were all toppled by violent revolution. France, Russia, Spain.

Small technical correction here, Russian revolution was caused by WW1 and German money and intelligence service meddling. Essentially german "CIA" of that era is responsible for creation of ISIS Soviet Union. Of course germans did what they did because they were losing WW1.
What I am saying Tsarism was not that bad and there were no internal reasons for revolution at the time.

Ehe... no. The Russian revolution was going to happen regardless. German money helped it along. If anything German medling put the Bolsheviks into power instead of the Mensheviks. But that's questionable. it's also dubious whether it had made any difference historically.

 

[barbos]

Small technical correction here, Russian revolution was caused by WW1 and German money and intelligence service meddling. Essentially german "CIA" of that era is responsible for creation of ISIS Soviet Union. Of course germans did what they did because they were losing WW1.
What I am saying Tsarism was not that bad and there were no internal reasons for revolution at the time.

Ehe... no. The Russian revolution was going to happen regardless. German money helped it along. If anything German medling put the Bolsheviks into power instead of the Mensheviks. But that's questionable. it's also dubious whether it had made any difference historically.

Well, I meant October Revolution, Lenin was nobody without german support.
December revolution was from capitalists and pretty decent democrats but without WW1 December revolution wouldn't have happened. Russia was transforming into constitutional monarchy just fine until WW1.
My point is, Germans have to pay for it! I will take couple of BMWs

 

[whichphilosophy]

Clearly our attempts to interfere have so far ended up as a major fiasco with millions killed and tens of millions displaced with democracy even further less likely.

The same people said the same in Europe the entire 19'th century. It took over a hundred years of carnage and instability before democracy. Both Napoleon and Hitler were the results of Enlightenment ideas of freedom and democracy. Sometimes the successful road isn't a straight line. The mess in the Middle-East is not even close to the mess we had in Europe when we were trying to democratise. The transitional systems that were the most successful ended up being the step-by-step democratisation processes. Every step of the way created a new stable system of government. This is what happened in Sweden and England. In Sweden we were on the brink of communist take-over for a bit less than a hundred years. This constant pressure of socialists created a slow evolution of moving power further and further down the ladder until we had full democracy. In the UK it was a fear of becoming France 2. A constant pressure of social unrest. None of these processes were smooth or pretty. But these are among the smoothest and prettiest.

I wouldn't call it a fiasco by a long shot. Monarchs/dictators in Europe who refused to budge and be a part of the step-by-step reforms were all toppled by violent revolution. France, Russia, Spain. The result of these were total and absolute carnage. This is what happened to Iraq, Syria and Libya. The problem wasn't western intervention. The problem was Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi. And we shouldn't take the blame for it. This is what democratisation looks like. It ain't pretty. It's rarely pretty .

Not all changes are violent. The problems in Iraq Syria and Libya stem directly from Western intervention regardless of who was there and the resulting deaths through war and starvation which have now surpassed one million.
What a dog's dinner they made of those countries.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... no. The Russian revolution was going to happen regardless. German money helped it along. If anything German medling put the Bolsheviks into power instead of the Mensheviks. But that's questionable. it's also dubious whether it had made any difference historically.

Well, I meant October Revolution, Lenin was nobody without german support.
December revolution was from capitalists and pretty decent democrats but without WW1 December revolution wouldn't have happened. Russia was transforming into constitutional monarchy just fine until WW1.
My point is, Germans have to pay for it! I will take couple of BMWs

No, it wasn't. The Duma was pure theatre. Nicholas II gave it no real power, and whenever there was any conflict Nicholas II just ignored it. In reality the reforms were no reforms. This can be compared to what Assad did. He constantly promised reforms but nothing concrete ever happened. It was all just talk and bullshit. In reality he let go of no power. Eventually people grow weary of it.

Yes, clearly WWI hurried things along. But all it did was to magnify an existing problem. There's actually a lot of similarities to what happened in Russia to what happened in Libya. They had autocratic rule and stability. Then they had democracy but chaos. Very quickly they returned to autocratic rule and stability again. Communism often gets a bad rap. In reality communism is quite good at taking care of those at the bottom of the ladder. They actually are. So even considering communisms horrendous record, most people in Russia were way better off under communism than Tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia was horribly unequal.

All it took in Libya was a spark. All it took in Syria was a spark. Same in Russia. If it hadn't been WWI, it would have been something else. They'd already had one failed revolution in 1905. That one didn't need to world war to help it along.

 

[barbos]

Tsarist Russia was no more unequal than Great Britain at the time. Just less democracy and less economy.