-
ISIS: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
So as ISIS recedes into a footnote, what happens next?
The military part is not quite done so now we need some consideration of what peace will look like.
The Kurdish referendum -hope for the future or catalyst for the next war?
Assad. He is still there despite the red lines crossed and desire of many to see him gone...but Russia...
Rebuilding across the arc that was the Caliphate; international assistance? disaster relief? some other humanitarian appellation?
Once the politics of violence ceases it seems the difficult bits begin.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...hat-comes-next
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Liberal democracy is an oxymoron in the region. That should be clear to all future dreamers in the west. You can have semi-liberalism enforced by a dictatorship, or you can have democracy that tends towards theocracy. The former is not friendly to our interests. The latter is actively hostile. If there is an existing dictatorship, count ourselves lucky and leave alone. Never push for more democracy in Muslim countries.
Oh, and to dickheads like Corbyn who side with Islamist organisations against Israel: Israel are bad but Islamists are worse. What Islamists have done in "liberated" countries is far worse than the already bad things Israel does. Abandon the whole region if you want to be ethically pure, but if you back Islamists against Israel, it only shows what a hypocritical arsehole you are.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Politics, like Nature abhors a vacuum.
During the interim of Caliphate and civil war, options abounded for regional actors (as well as international)
Now, what becomes of the militias sponsored by Iran?
Israel has some ideas, and it does not bode well for Peace:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/28/...to-fight-iran/
This looks like the opening the U.S. is looking for; paint Iran as a regional demonic force, ditch the nuclear agreement and refocus on overthrowing a (possible) regional hegemon.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Comparing Israel with Islamists, like they're some sort of mortal enemies, is an invalid generalization.
Sometimes they fight, but Israel has repeatedly helped Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda.
The more accurate comparison is that between Israel and Hezbollah, which is not an Islamist bigoted organization, but it is actually a member of the Lebanese government that cooperates with Christians and Sunnis.
I don't see why Hezbollah is worse than Israel. Yes, they have targeted civilians, but these attacks were very few and not different to Israel's indiscriminate bombarding, imo.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
i'll just gracefully admit that I don't understand anything about that piece of the world and probably never will
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fragony
i'll just gracefully admit that I don't understand anything about that piece of the world and probably never will
It's not that complicated. The problem is that many amateurish and lazy journalists assume that the Middle Eastern politics are shaped, unlike any other geopolitical conflict, mainly by ideology, when in reality they don't.
I know an Iranian émigré living in Canada, who gains his living by writing propaganda pieces for both Saudi Arabia, praising Islam and Saudi Arabian cultural influence, and Israel, by managing an Islamophobic NGO, who whines about white genocide and Eurabia.
Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crandar
It's not that complicated. The problem is that many amateurish and lazy journalists assume that the Middle Eastern politics are shaped, unlike any other geopolitical conflict, mainly by ideology, when in reality they don't.
I know an Iranian émigré living in Canada, who gains his living by writing propaganda pieces for both Saudi Arabia, praising Islam and Saudi Arabian cultural influence, and Israel, by managing an Islamophobic NGO, who whines about white genocide and Eurabia.
Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.
What's up with nuances? We get blamed all the time for intervening, and we get blamed for not intervening too. At least the latter is cheaper, and doesn't directly lead to people wanting to bomb us. So if the middle east and by extension Muslim world want to, of their own accord, make their countries into shitholes, we shouldn't bash ourselves over it over how humanity is cruel to itself. Self determination is also a liberal argument, and it applies to us just as much to us as it applies to places like Iraq that we're blamed for for putting our hands to.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Crandar
Then the public gets confused, when the dumb, simplistic and lazy narrative of many media is contradicted by facts.
I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?
It's none of our business. The regional powers will be playing their regional game and killing pawns, but it's not our place to impose a peace they can't reach themselves.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
What's up with nuances? We get blamed all the time for intervening, and we get blamed for not intervening too. At least the latter is cheaper, and doesn't directly lead to people wanting to bomb us. So if the middle east and by extension Muslim world want to, of their own accord, make their countries into shitholes, we shouldn't bash ourselves over it over how humanity is cruel to itself. Self determination is also a liberal argument, and it applies to us just as much to us as it applies to places like Iraq that we're blamed for for putting our hands to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
I agree.
But what of the peace?
The Kurds I suppose could be dealt nada; like the Arabs after WW1; after that it looks complicated.
What political settlement would mollify the participants and possibly bring peace to the region?
How is rebuilding handled? Who pays? Who builds?
I agree with pann that the moral and least bloody option is simply non-intervention, but expecting that the governments of major powers will stop meddling in the affairs of the Middle East is utopian.
They intervene, because they want to promote their interests or undermine those of their opponents, not for humanitarian and democratic concerns (establishing a stable democracy could be the mean for a grater purpose, e.g. creation of a prosperous allied state or a huge consumer base).
These interests may involve the opening of new markets, the exploitation of local resources by international companies, the destabilization of an enemy, rearranging the energy market and the formation of an environment friendly to investment.
If the benefits outweigh the advantages of casualties, refugee waves, diplomatic repercussions, domestic discontent and etc. then interventionism will be preferred over isolationism.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Liberal democracy is an oxymoron in the region.
Yeah, I wonder why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
You want to blame something that happened in 1953 for the repeated failure of liberal democracy to take hold in Muslim countries since 2001? Would you like to explain why Pakistan has progressively become more Islamist since the 1970s?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
You want to blame something that happened in 1953 for the repeated failure of liberal democracy to take hold in Muslim countries since 2001? Would you like to explain why Pakistan has progressively become more Islamist since the 1970s?
It's impossible to tell, but Iran could still be a democracy if it hadn't been "overruled" back then. A lot of things might be different today then. That the rest of the region was colonized for quite a while probably doesn't help. The USA tried to be a good democracy for more than 200 years now and they're still plagued or trying to deal with some of the issues that came up when the nation was founded. The Polish still think to some extent that Russia and Germany are out to get them. Plenty of Chileans are still mad that the USA aided Pinochet and brought them ruthless neoliberalism. Such problems aren't always resolved in a few decades and it's not just the Middle East where that is the case.
Even some British people still think they're better off without the continent...
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
It's impossible to tell, but Iran could still be a democracy if it hadn't been "overruled" back then. A lot of things might be different today then. That the rest of the region was colonized for quite a while probably doesn't help. The USA tried to be a good democracy for more than 200 years now and they're still plagued or trying to deal with some of the issues that came up when the nation was founded. The Polish still think to some extent that Russia and Germany are out to get them. Plenty of Chileans are still mad that the USA aided Pinochet and brought them ruthless neoliberalism. Such problems aren't always resolved in a few decades and it's not just the Middle East where that is the case.
Even some British people still think they're better off without the continent...
Pakistan has been an uninterrupted democracy since partition. Of its own accord, it has become drastically more religiously conservative since the 1970s, to the point where atheists cannot publicly declare themselves without risk to their life, and the state has imposed capital punishment for blasphemy. If it's all the fault of the west, and particularly Britain, explain why Pakistan has become so.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Pakistan has been an uninterrupted democracy since partition. Of its own accord, it has become drastically more religiously conservative since the 1970s, to the point where atheists cannot publicly declare themselves without risk to their life, and the state has imposed capital punishment for blasphemy. If it's all the fault of the west, and particularly Britain, explain why Pakistan has become so.
Because, in our arrogance, we presume that something the West could do/has done/should do would make THE difference because we are "better" (rationale for this better-ness differs with ideology) than the locals.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Pakistan has been an uninterrupted democracy since partition. Of its own accord, it has become drastically more religiously conservative since the 1970s, to the point where atheists cannot publicly declare themselves without risk to their life, and the state has imposed capital punishment for blasphemy. If it's all the fault of the west, and particularly Britain, explain why Pakistan has become so.
Perhaps it just doesn't exist in a vacuum? There'd be no racism in Britain if only Britain existed. Although, perhaps the Northumbrians would then think the Wessexians (?) were subhuman or so...Why is Estonia suddenly afraid of Russian invasion? Did it accidentally radicalize regardless of the happenings in Ukraine?
Islam as a religion goes beyond borders. There are Christians in Germany who are more afraid of persecution because persecution of Christians happens in Asia and Africa every day. They don't just live in a vacuum and ignore what happens to people they associate with elsewhere.
The same applies to terrorism. The attacks in the UK, France and Germany tend to put all of Europe on altert to some extent and not just the affected country. So if you invade every other muslim country, you think the others will just shrug and ignore it?
The real problem of course, is how to fix it now. I agree with you to some extent that in some situations it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. In some of those it might just be about what we do or how we do it though. Supporting thugs and dictators with weapons to "help" because it's cheaper/easier may not be the kind of help people were asking for for example.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Perhaps it just doesn't exist in a vacuum? There'd be no racism in Britain if only Britain existed. Although, perhaps the Northumbrians would then think the Wessexians (?) were subhuman or so...Why is Estonia suddenly afraid of Russian invasion? Did it accidentally radicalize regardless of the happenings in Ukraine?
Islam as a religion goes beyond borders. There are Christians in Germany who are more afraid of persecution because persecution of Christians happens in Asia and Africa every day. They don't just live in a vacuum and ignore what happens to people they associate with elsewhere.
The same applies to terrorism. The attacks in the UK, France and Germany tend to put all of Europe on altert to some extent and not just the affected country. So if you invade every other muslim country, you think the others will just shrug and ignore it?
The real problem of course, is how to fix it now. I agree with you to some extent that in some situations it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. In some of those it might just be about what we do or how we do it though. Supporting thugs and dictators with weapons to "help" because it's cheaper/easier may not be the kind of help people were asking for for example.
Or you could read explanations by Pakistanis looking at Pakistani history. They trace it back to when the Pakistani government started to admit religion into the state, and from there it perpetuated itself, with each generation deepening the hold of religion. And extrapolating from that, you can see practically the same situation beginning in Turkey. And in the conditions which advocates of liberal democracy in the middle east have created, Islamists have had the chance to exploit the link between Islamic religion and Islamic state.
I'm not arguing that we should support thugs with weapons and such. Note that I said, "If there is an existing dictatorship, count ourselves lucky and leave alone. Never push for more democracy in Muslim countries." Iraq should have been the lesson (that I opposed, so don't point that at me). Libya and Syria already had dictators keeping down the Muslim population. We shouldn't have been doing anything to destabilise them. But we encouraged freedom and democracy. And predictably, the Muslim population used their freedom to turn to Islamism. If these oppressed populations want to overturn their dictators to gain freedom and democracy, that's their right. But we shouldn't be doing anything to help them. There are far better prospects elsewhere in the world, if we want to play liberator.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
It's none of our business. The regional powers will be playing their regional game and killing pawns, but it's not our place to impose a peace they can't reach themselves.
True, but there are millions of dollars at stake when it comes to military contractors. They can't get paid if there aren't enough wars.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
reinoe
True, but there are millions of dollars at stake when it comes to military contractors. They can't get paid if there aren't enough wars.
A credible threat of war is often enough, especially when combined with an almost definitionally endless 'War on Terror' or a nice chilly 'cold' war.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Or you could read explanations by Pakistanis looking at Pakistani history. They trace it back to when the Pakistani government started to admit religion into the state, and from there it perpetuated itself, with each generation deepening the hold of religion.
Well, those Pakistani sources seem rather hard to find. Not knowing a lot about the country's history, I did some searching and came up with some sources they seem to disagree with you:
http://www.trtworld.com/opinion/paki...alf-full--9252
Quote:
The latest, and now struggling, transition to democracy in Pakistan began in 2007, when momentum grew for the ouster of then president and military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf.
[...]
The two decades of civilian rule that have sandwiched the Musharraf era have failed to provide a single instance of genuine civilian-led accountability of public officials. Meanwhile, the material disparity between the poor masses and the political elite has grown.
So, not only does the source as a whole talk about the state of Pakistan's democracy as being rather ambiguous, it also mentions a dictatorship that lasted until 2007, whereas you state it had uninterrupted democracy since the partition and then mention something about the 1970s. Given that Musharraf came to power in 2001, that would mean the author does not see any democracy before or until the 1990s either. At the very least I take from this that your view of uninterrupted democracy is one of many interpretations.
And then there is this source: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/...opr/t236/e0616
Quote:
Pakistan is unique among Muslim countries in its relationship with Islam: it is the only country to have been established in the name of Islam. Hence, Pakistan's political experience is integrally related to the struggle of Indian Muslims to find an autonomous political center after their loss of power to the British in the early nineteenth century. Muslims, who had ruled large parts of India for several centuries before the consolidation of British power in the early 1800s, perceived a challenge to their civilization in a political space increasingly dominated by European and Hindu ideas and values.
Which brings us right back to colonial disturbances, but even worse, it says it was founded in the name of Islam. So when exactly did the government bring Islam into the mix and was it really a democratic government? Your version of events seems disputable at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
And extrapolating from that, you can see practically the same situation beginning in Turkey.
Well, if you can see it already, there is no need to extrapolate in the first place. That said, I don't think you can just extrapolate from Pakistan to any country and I'm not entirely sure what you see in Turkey. Yes, Erdogan has brought back some religious rules, but it mostly looks like measures to solidify his own power, whereas a lot of his supporters cite economic development as a key factor for their support. We can't even say for sure that the referendum that mgave him more power was actually democratically decided in his favor, given all the irrelegularities and downright undemocratic things that happened during it (counting of votes on unofficial ballots, threat of violence in polling stations, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
And in the conditions which advocates of liberal democracy in the middle east have created, Islamists have had the chance to exploit the link between Islamic religion and Islamic state.
What exactly are you referring to? I might just as well say the conditions that Monarchist imperials have created, led directly to the current state of violence and instability in much of Africa and the Middle East. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance these places were quite like the rest of the world. Seemingly it was only in the past few decades since colonialism that Islam turned into this oppressive thing with terrorism and hatred. Why should that be more representative than the 800 years or so of more enlightened, "normal" Islam that preceeded it? And why did it become this way in the first place? If you're going to say it traces back to how Muhammad behaved, please explain why they seemingly forgot about that for hundreds of years.
Why did Christianity "settle in" and become "domesticated" and peaceful while parts of Islam turned more aggressive and angry? I would think it may have something to do with a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle Ages, that was overturned when Europeans, and by extension or continuation the USA, conquered large parts of the world and then continued to play world police there. No, you're not meant to be ashamed now, but it might mean that relations and moods may normalize again once we stop doing that. Which also leads me to the next part of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
I'm not arguing that we should support thugs with weapons and such. Note that I said, "If there is an existing dictatorship, count ourselves lucky and leave alone. Never push for more democracy in Muslim countries." Iraq should have been the lesson (that I opposed, so don't point that at me). Libya and Syria already had dictators keeping down the Muslim population. We shouldn't have been doing anything to destabilise them. But we encouraged freedom and democracy. And predictably, the Muslim population used their freedom to turn to Islamism. If these oppressed populations want to overturn their dictators to gain freedom and democracy, that's their right. But we shouldn't be doing anything to help them. There are far better prospects elsewhere in the world, if we want to play liberator.
Well, yeah, except that with quite a few of those "existing dictatorships", we were the ones who brought them to power or at the very least gave them weapons in the first place. As I said above, I agree somewhat though, that we should perhaps just stay out of the mess in some cases. Sometimes it may really be a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. The biggest problem is most likely when these countries have ~50% educated, modern youths yearning for liberal democracy, and ~50% older, rural folks wanting tradition etc., who also support the current hardline government. The shift over time might be towards democracy, but until then the young educated people live in a terrible place and just want out. When I see that my country's politics are dictated by old folks who want no change, accept no argument, and are afraid of the boogeyman, some part of me also just wants out of here...
Either way, the first step would probably have to be fighting the perception that we only want to dictate them our terms behind the curtains. It's not that far-fetched when Saudi Arabia destroys any dissent with Western weapons or Saddam Hussein gasses Kurdish people with German chemicals.
And I'm really not sure whether playing liberator in other parts of the world is a better idea. Ask some Chileans about how thankful they are to the US for giving them the Chicago Boys to "liberate" them from socialism...
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Well, those Pakistani sources seem rather hard to find. Not knowing a lot about the country's history, I did some searching and came up with some sources they seem to disagree with you:
http://www.trtworld.com/opinion/paki...alf-full--9252
So, not only does the source as a whole talk about the state of Pakistan's democracy as being rather ambiguous, it also mentions a dictatorship that lasted until 2007, whereas you state it had uninterrupted democracy since the partition and then mention something about the 1970s. Given that Musharraf came to power in 2001, that would mean the author does not see any democracy before or until the 1990s either. At the very least I take from this that your view of uninterrupted democracy is one of many interpretations.
And then there is this source:
http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/...opr/t236/e0616
Which brings us right back to colonial disturbances, but even worse, it says it was founded in the name of Islam. So when exactly did the government bring Islam into the mix and was it really a democratic government? Your version of events seems disputable at least.
According to the accounts I've read, from people living in Pakistan, the junta (if democracy had been interrupted, it wasn't of the west's doing) legitimated their power in the 1980s by allying themselves with Islamists and promoting their primacy in education. It's possible to make a case for this extending into foreign policy as well, but the people I've read focus on domestic concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Well, if you can see it already, there is no need to extrapolate in the first place. That said, I don't think you can just extrapolate from Pakistan to any country and I'm not entirely sure what you see in Turkey. Yes, Erdogan has brought back some religious rules, but it mostly looks like measures to solidify his own power, whereas a lot of his supporters cite economic development as a key factor for their support. We can't even say for sure that the referendum that mgave him more power was actually democratically decided in his favor, given all the irrelegularities and downright undemocratic things that happened during it (counting of votes on unofficial ballots, threat of violence in polling stations, etc.).
What exactly are you referring to? I might just as well say the conditions that Monarchist imperials have created, led directly to the current state of violence and instability in much of Africa and the Middle East. During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance these places were quite like the rest of the world. Seemingly it was only in the past few decades since colonialism that Islam turned into this oppressive thing with terrorism and hatred. Why should that be more representative than the 800 years or so of more enlightened, "normal" Islam that preceeded it? And why did it become this way in the first place? If you're going to say it traces back to how Muhammad behaved, please explain why they seemingly forgot about that for hundreds of years.
Why did Christianity "settle in" and become "domesticated" and peaceful while parts of Islam turned more aggressive and angry? I would think it may have something to do with a more balanced distribution of power in the Middle Ages, that was overturned when Europeans, and by extension or continuation the USA, conquered large parts of the world and then continued to play world police there. No, you're not meant to be ashamed now, but it might mean that relations and moods may normalize again once we stop doing that. Which also leads me to the next part of your post.
Well, yeah, except that with quite a few of those "existing dictatorships", we were the ones who brought them to power or at the very least gave them weapons in the first place. As I said above, I agree somewhat though, that we should perhaps just stay out of the mess in some cases. Sometimes it may really be a damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. The biggest problem is most likely when these countries have ~50% educated, modern youths yearning for liberal democracy, and ~50% older, rural folks wanting tradition etc., who also support the current hardline government. The shift over time might be towards democracy, but until then the young educated people live in a terrible place and just want out. When I see that my country's politics are dictated by old folks who want no change, accept no argument, and are afraid of the boogeyman, some part of me also just wants out of here...
Either way, the first step would probably have to be fighting the perception that we only want to dictate them our terms behind the curtains. It's not that far-fetched when Saudi Arabia destroys any dissent with Western weapons or Saddam Hussein gasses Kurdish people with German chemicals.
And I'm really not sure whether playing liberator in other parts of the world is a better idea. Ask some Chileans about how thankful they are to the US for giving them the Chicago Boys to "liberate" them from socialism...
You talk a load of baloney about stuff that happened outside my lifetime. Well within my lifetime my country has largely withdrawn from setting up right wing dictatorships, while I have seen the growth of Islamism and bleeding heart liberal apologists (who come from the same page as the Communist apologists whom Orwell despised). I can't do owt about stuff that happened before I was born. But I can do whatever I can about stuff that happens in my lifetime. And unlike you, at least I follow through with my arguments to arrive at whatever conclusion the argument directs me to. In your case of course, you start with the conclusion and find the argument to support your conclusion.
And as for youths yearning for liberal democracy: read about the killings of atheists and "blasphemers" in south Asia. It's the youths who are the most militant in that region. Even ones attending university (cf. the student who was lynched at uni for blasphemy).
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
You talk a load of baloney about stuff that happened outside my lifetime. Well within my lifetime my country has largely withdrawn from setting up right wing dictatorships, while I have seen the growth of Islamism and bleeding heart liberal apologists (who come from the same page as the Communist apologists whom Orwell despised). I can't do owt about stuff that happened before I was born. But I can do whatever I can about stuff that happens in my lifetime. And unlike you, at least I follow through with my arguments to arrive at whatever conclusion the argument directs me to. In your case of course, you start with the conclusion and find the argument to support your conclusion.
And as for youths yearning for liberal democracy: read about the killings of atheists and "blasphemers" in south Asia. It's the youths who are the most militant in that region. Even ones attending university (cf. the student who was lynched at uni for blasphemy).
He's perfectly correct in referencing things that happened outside your lifetime. We are the product of the past and as such must deal with the complications that come from our forefathers thinking for better or worse.
I don't have any cause with those bleeding hearts types but the rise of Islamism is a reaction to the socialist-nationalism that arose in the '50s and '60s. That nationalism was in turn a reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman order together with colonialism. That colonialism in turn is a result of mercantilism and security policies (Barbary Coast pirates).
While I believe that Husar is always too quick to blame Europe/USAs intervention in the middle east as the primary cause of it's problems his arguments are logical.
However, Europe's sphere has always extended to the whole Mediterranean basin, even the Roman's and Greeks saw it and it will always continue to be so. The European powers will meddle in the middle east when stronger just as those same countries have always strove to push their sphere into Europe when the situation allowed as well.
Liberal democracies reflect their societies, setting them up in countries who's societies are opposed to us will naturally result in a government reflecting that. I don't excuse the out reach of these democracies in the slightest, I think it's a shame the governments there must make such a concession to their ultra conservative wings to placate the religious extremists but that's always going to happen when poverty and insecurity reign.
I'm quite happy that the military is in charge of Egypt again even though that's extremely undemocratic of them. At the same time I'm happy that Tunisia is a democracy and is succeeding even if only precariously.
Youths will always be the most militant, they are the easiest to sway, they have the least world experience and have a desire for a cause to fight for. All those bleeding heart liberals are of the same cut, they want something to fight for and fighting the ruling class, the government or nations is always more appealing than 'conforming' to accept a less exciting narrative. Why else are conspiracy theories so popular, the allure of hidden knowledge and being part of the underdog is very appealing to most youths.
As for apologists, well a lot of them do have a point. I'm a patriot through and through but I can and do admit the wrongs of the present and past. It's not betrayal to admit wrong, it's not condemnation of your ancestors. I have family that fought for the Wehrmacht, am I ashamed? No, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that they should be especially proud either or white wash the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Same fore my US family, should I condemn my forefathers that fought the Indians/Native Americans in New England, no of course not. I'm not going to pretend however that they weren't the invaders either nor pardon their participating in the slave trade (they had a plantation in Jamaica too).
Point being that there are two sides to each issue, to dismiss the one you don't like just because is just as reckless as those that dismiss your opinion. The world is very very complicated, trying to oversimplify and blame/vilify just the Europeans/Americans or the Islamists is the same attitude the led the current situation.
Accepting cruel dictators will lead to backlash just as stoking religious/nationalism in a democracy does.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spmetla
He's perfectly correct in referencing things that happened outside your lifetime. We are the product of the past and as such must deal with the complications that come from our forefathers thinking for better or worse.
I don't have any cause with those bleeding hearts types but the rise of Islamism is a reaction to the socialist-nationalism that arose in the '50s and '60s. That nationalism was in turn a reaction to the collapse of the Ottoman order together with colonialism. That colonialism in turn is a result of mercantilism and security policies (Barbary Coast pirates).
While I believe that Husar is always too quick to blame Europe/USAs intervention in the middle east as the primary cause of it's problems his arguments are logical.
However, Europe's sphere has always extended to the whole Mediterranean basin, even the Roman's and Greeks saw it and it will always continue to be so. The European powers will meddle in the middle east when stronger just as those same countries have always strove to push their sphere into Europe when the situation allowed as well.
Liberal democracies reflect their societies, setting them up in countries who's societies are opposed to us will naturally result in a government reflecting that. I don't excuse the out reach of these democracies in the slightest, I think it's a shame the governments there must make such a concession to their ultra conservative wings to placate the religious extremists but that's always going to happen when poverty and insecurity reign.
I'm quite happy that the military is in charge of Egypt again even though that's extremely undemocratic of them. At the same time I'm happy that Tunisia is a democracy and is succeeding even if only precariously.
Youths will always be the most militant, they are the easiest to sway, they have the least world experience and have a desire for a cause to fight for. All those bleeding heart liberals are of the same cut, they want something to fight for and fighting the ruling class, the government or nations is always more appealing than 'conforming' to accept a less exciting narrative. Why else are conspiracy theories so popular, the allure of hidden knowledge and being part of the underdog is very appealing to most youths.
As for apologists, well a lot of them do have a point. I'm a patriot through and through but I can and do admit the wrongs of the present and past. It's not betrayal to admit wrong, it's not condemnation of your ancestors. I have family that fought for the Wehrmacht, am I ashamed? No, but I'm certainly not going to advocate that they should be especially proud either or white wash the crimes committed by the Wehrmacht. Same fore my US family, should I condemn my forefathers that fought the Indians/Native Americans in New England, no of course not. I'm not going to pretend however that they weren't the invaders either nor pardon their participating in the slave trade (they had a plantation in Jamaica too).
Point being that there are two sides to each issue, to dismiss the one you don't like just because is just as reckless as those that dismiss your opinion. The world is very very complicated, trying to oversimplify and blame/vilify just the Europeans/Americans or the Islamists is the same attitude the led the current situation.
Accepting cruel dictators will lead to backlash just as stoking religious/nationalism in a democracy does.
Husar once castigated Britain for what it was doing wrong in Syria. I then presented him with two models of foreign policy, both incidentally founded on liberalism, and asked him which he favours. He then ummed and aahed over how circumstances dictate what to do, sit on the fence, etc. Even after I explained to him that, post-WWI, one model was the default, to be assumed in the absence of any other bilateral/multilateral agreements. To accept one or the other model would, you see, deprive him of an avenue by which to criticise Britain for doing things wrong, as he's consistently done so using both models (intervention/non-intervention). Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.
The two models were as follows.
1. Self determination is the basis of all nations. A nation should choose its own government and form of government by itself, without outside interference. This has been the default since Woodrow Wilson in WWI.
2. Liberal democracy is the form to which all societies aspire to. Where dictatorships reign, this is against the natural order, and action should be taken to remove the dictatorship and transition into liberal democracy. This is the basis of neoconservatism, and has been discredited since Iraq.
So when a dictatorship is currently in power, what should Britain do? Should Britain take action against the dictatorship that it had some part in setting up generations before? Or should it leave alone?
Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.
As for apologism: see Orwell's observation that they will frequently indulge in all kinds of double thinking in order to show that Anglo-America are in the wrong, and that their chosen movement is in the right. The very source of the term doublethink satirises this.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Kage, unlike Husar, grasped the historical argument that is still the basis of international affairs today, and correspondingly accepted the logic of that argument.
[...]
Kage accepted that self-determination is indeed the basis of international affairs, and that deviations from such would be wrong. Husar recognised that accepting either model would deprive him of his correct conclusion, which is that Britain is in the wrong.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
The two models were as follows.
1. Self determination is the basis of all nations. A nation should choose its own government and form of government by itself, without outside interference. This has been the default since Woodrow Wilson in WWI.
2. Liberal democracy is the form to which all societies aspire to. Where dictatorships reign, this is against the natural order, and action should be taken to remove the dictatorship and transition into liberal democracy. This is the basis of neoconservatism, and has been discredited since Iraq.
The problem with both your models is what is a nation? Should it be defined by ethicitity, language, race, borders (natural or historical)? Even Wilson's model was flawed, the Hungarians wanted independence from Austro-Hungary but they wanted to keep all of historical Hungary not just ethnic Hungary and even by that division there were plenty of Hungarians left out by this new nation of Hungary.
Additionally, they are not exclusive and as such aren't really opposing models.
At what level should self determination be limited? Should the world be filled with City-States again? I know Venice probably would be happy not paying for southern Italy's problems. Balkanization is the natural outcome if self determination is the rule.
Is it the right of the Catalans to opt out of Spain just because they want to? Is it right of the Spanish to forcibly maintain the integrity of their country?
Was it right for the US to fight the Confederacy to preserve the Union if the Southern States wanted to leave?
As for liberal democracy being what all societies aspire to, I disagree. Some societies truly want theocracy, some want traditional monarchies. Liberal democracy is really only the goal for literate affluent societies. Once you have enough folks educated enough and affluent enough they want control of their own affairs. It starts out with just the elite getting power, then the lower classes. Going from no liberty to full democracy is always a dangerous jump. The liberal part also requires a society that wants to protect minorities within (political, ethnic, linguist etc..), otherwise it's just a tyranny of the masses.
As for Husar, he does have a very anti British bias. From what I've read he sees the the British Empire as the cause of all the problems today. Blaming the British method of creating nations post WWI is perfectly fine, it did lead to the current situation in in the greater scheme, as for what it should do I'd almost say there is nothing they could really do. Overthrowing Assad adds to problems, keeping him is also a problem, breaking up Syria into a Sunni republic and a City-State of Greater Damascus is also not doable.
The question of intervention and non-intervention is never easy. If the US were in a position to militarily intervene in Burma to stop the genocide there would that be the right thing to do? Is it acceptable to allow someone to kill their own citizens and only intervene if they start killing other peoples citizens?
As for the original scope of the thread, the situation is so damn complicated there really is no right answer. I'd suggest supporting the current governments in Iraq and Syria while negotiating for observation of conditions, a Marshal Plan style reconstruction plan, as well as forcing/negotiating concessions to secure the rights of minorities. As for the Kurdish question, it'd be good to push the current Syrian and Iraqi governments toward allowing for eventual Kurdish independence in a decade or so. There needs to be some stability in the region before creating 'new' nations as well as making sure to iron out borders and trade beforehand otherwise it leads to another war.
Whatever we do we can't just ignore the problem there, limited intervention has it's place. The Yugoslav example is a good example of exactly the type of ethnic, religious, and historical problems at hand. While the situation in that region is stable now (even with the odd state of Kosovo existing) it is still precarious.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spmetla
The problem with both your models is what is a nation? Should it be defined by ethicitity, language, race, borders (natural or historical)? Even Wilson's model was flawed, the Hungarians wanted independence from Austro-Hungary but they wanted to keep all of historical Hungary not just ethnic Hungary and even by that division there were plenty of Hungarians left out by this new nation of Hungary.
Additionally, they are not exclusive and as such aren't really opposing models.
At what level should self determination be limited? Should the world be filled with City-States again? I know Venice probably would be happy not paying for southern Italy's problems. Balkanization is the natural outcome if self determination is the rule.
Is it the right of the Catalans to opt out of Spain just because they want to? Is it right of the Spanish to forcibly maintain the integrity of their country?
Was it right for the US to fight the Confederacy to preserve the Union if the Southern States wanted to leave?
As for liberal democracy being what all societies aspire to, I disagree. Some societies truly want theocracy, some want traditional monarchies. Liberal democracy is really only the goal for literate affluent societies. Once you have enough folks educated enough and affluent enough they want control of their own affairs. It starts out with just the elite getting power, then the lower classes. Going from no liberty to full democracy is always a dangerous jump. The liberal part also requires a society that wants to protect minorities within (political, ethnic, linguist etc..), otherwise it's just a tyranny of the masses.
As for Husar, he does have a very anti British bias. From what I've read he sees the the British Empire as the cause of all the problems today. Blaming the British method of creating nations post WWI is perfectly fine, it did lead to the current situation in in the greater scheme, as for what it should do I'd almost say there is nothing they could really do. Overthrowing Assad adds to problems, keeping him is also a problem, breaking up Syria into a Sunni republic and a City-State of Greater Damascus is also not doable.
The question of intervention and non-intervention is never easy. If the US were in a position to militarily intervene in Burma to stop the genocide there would that be the right thing to do? Is it acceptable to allow someone to kill their own citizens and only intervene if they start killing other peoples citizens?
As for the original scope of the thread, the situation is so damn complicated there really is no right answer. I'd suggest supporting the current governments in Iraq and Syria while negotiating for observation of conditions, a Marshal Plan style reconstruction plan, as well as forcing/negotiating concessions to secure the rights of minorities. As for the Kurdish question, it'd be good to push the current Syrian and Iraqi governments toward allowing for eventual Kurdish independence in a decade or so. There needs to be some stability in the region before creating 'new' nations as well as making sure to iron out borders and trade beforehand otherwise it leads to another war.
Whatever we do we can't just ignore the problem there, limited intervention has it's place. The Yugoslav example is a good example of exactly the type of ethnic, religious, and historical problems at hand. While the situation in that region is stable now (even with the odd state of Kosovo existing) it is still precarious.
So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spmetla
As for the original scope of the thread, the situation is so damn complicated there really is no right answer. I'd suggest supporting the current governments in Iraq and Syria while negotiating for observation of conditions, a Marshal Plan style reconstruction plan, as well as forcing/negotiating concessions to secure the rights of minorities. As for the Kurdish question, it'd be good to push the current Syrian and Iraqi governments toward allowing for eventual Kurdish independence in a decade or so. There needs to be some stability in the region before creating 'new' nations as well as making sure to iron out borders and trade beforehand otherwise it leads to another war.
Whatever we do we can't just ignore the problem there, limited intervention has it's place. The Yugoslav example is a good example of exactly the type of ethnic, religious, and historical problems at hand. While the situation in that region is stable now (even with the odd state of Kosovo existing) it is still precarious.
Syria, even Syria, is missing the preliminary step to the Marshall Plan.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.
Blair is British, so he was obviously wrong. :clown:
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.
Where did I ever say to blame the people of today? Take responsibility if it is reasonable but at least admit the wrong doing. Case for that: annexation of Hawaii. US was wrong to support the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and then annex it a few years latter. I don't advocate blaming the current US government or generations of americans for the woes in Hawaii nor redressing it somehow by some sort of restoration of the monarchy there.
You need to stop assuming that acknowledgement of past errors is equal with blaming the present. You can't address the present day problems without knowledge of past rights and wrongs.
The 1953 Iranian overthrow example you and Husar used for example. The US was wrong to do it, of course. That doesn't mean I blame the US for all the reactionary wrongs that Iran has done in retribution against the "Great Satan." You cannot negotiate with today's Iranian government without acknowledging the past.
Unlike the apologists and revisionists though I don't imagine that an Iranian democracy would have been sunshine and roses either, it would probably have devolved toward dictatorship, communism, or the current theocracy anyhow. That doesn't justify the actions taken by the Eisenhower administration however given the Cold War situation and what had just happened in China, Korea, Indo-China, Malaysia, and so on I can understand to seek pro-US stability even at the cost of a harsh police state instead of allowing the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil and allowing the Pandora's box of possibilities to occur in such a vital country.
As for your specific question, I don't think Tony Blair was wrong by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq. The method of achieving that goal through invasion and imposition of a system on a former dictatorship was in hindsight a terrible idea. Hell, it might even have worked if the Coalition Provisional Government under Paul Bremer hadn't so massively botched the job right from the start. Perhaps if Paul Bremer tried to understand the present day difficulties of Iraq and its complicated past he might have been successful instead of alienating the Sunni minority which now feared their disenfranchisement.
Quote:
Syria, even Syria, is missing the preliminary step to the Marshall Plan.
Well of course it is, doesn't mean we shouldn't start rebuilding in Iraq and Kurdistan...again. For Syria we're in a post WWII Greece situation, support the nazi fighting communists or the nazi collaborating 'democrats?'
When you apply principles and standards it's difficult. I'd prefer we support the Chiang Kai-sheks of the world and push for reform with carrot stick approaches than allow the Mao Zedongs and their radical Islamic equivalents to take over.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
So let's put these arguments to the test. If it is reasonable to look back generations to blame the people of today and thus argue that they should take responsibility, was Tony Blair right to attempt to redress the wrongs of the past by encouraging liberal democracy in Iraq? Don't bother with arguments over the aftermath and whether enough was done, as Blair's destroyed reputation is entirely to do with the initial invasion. I'd like Husar to answer that question too.
Such an arse-about-face way of looking at it. I know Blair himself saw /sees his middle east interventions as divine acts rejected by heathens, but he's mad. We don't have to go along with it.
The region has been politically and economically controlled and manipulated for centuries. There has never been any consideration of what the people want... With perhaps the exception of saddam in some circumstances.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Idaho
Such an arse-about-face way of looking at it. I know Blair himself saw /sees his middle east interventions as divine acts rejected by heathens, but he's mad. We don't have to go along with it.
The region has been politically and economically controlled and manipulated for centuries. There has never been any consideration of what the people want... With perhaps the exception of saddam in some circumstances.
So how does that hand wringing translate into a plan? What should be done? What shouldn't be done? How should this plan be decided?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Here are some musing from the BBC
It has some dubious assumptions, but at least looks at some of the issues:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/o...-strategy.html
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Go on, this is fun to read. I really like Kage, too.
"Raises up from a dusty corner of backroom". You summoned me and here i am. Uhm, self- determination. Yesshh..
In my opinion the events around the Kurdish referendum has been a travesty. We should look at the whole area in this context as just looking at Iraq does not give us any clear picture at this point, while lumping this affair as internal affair of Iraq has been an easy way to look at the issue. The factors at Iraq are the Iraq Shia government, which is backed by Iran, The past Isis disgruntled Sunni at central and Northern Iraq and the Kurds at Eastern and Northern Iraq.
To me it is rather lazy for the World to use rhetorics like the protection of integrity of state of Iraq, as there is no such thing anymore. The Shia government and Iran of course will do their utmost to hang into power in all Iraq, but if we look into the facts, such is not possible anymore. The Shia power is clear and solid in the South, but to control the central and the Northern Sunnis, without any radical change will only mean endless war. Iran is also worried about the aspirations of their Western Kurdish minority.
Turkey, another power in the area is worried about Iraqi Kurdistan, since creation of Iraqi Kurdistan might launch creation of Syrian Kurdistan and even Turkish Kurdistan.
The constant ethos of West has been that everything should be done in order to bring stability and peace to the area and create circumstances prolific for democracy. The closest thing for such can be found in Iraqi Kurdistan, where Kurdish have been harboring Assyrian, Turkmen and Jesidi minorities from Isis, while being the main antagonist of Isis from the total collapse of Iraq armed forces at Northern parts of the country back at 2014 until the start of the counter offensive of Government forces during 2016. The Kurdish region is also secular and the standing of women in their society is light years ahead of the rest of Iraq.
With these points. It should be a no brainer, which side the West should be supporting in Iraq, but it is not so. The rhetoric range from "stability" to "avoiding further fragmentation" to "defusing the situation". Aka simply rhetorics for rhetorics. Only clear cut supporter of Iraqi Kurdistan referendum was Israel, but while Iran, Turkey and Iraq goverment are having military manouvers at the borders of Kurdistan. One thing these countries and also the international community might be forgetting is that with the 93% support for the independency, battle tested armed forces and stabile internal situation, added the geography of the area. Pressing the Iraqi Kurdistan back to fold might be something more the other factions might be able to chew. And yes that is self- determination.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
If you don't mind, Kage, now that everyone has read your excellent post, I'm just going to leave this here:
https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedInd...3678086359339/
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
The Husarian equivalent of Godwin.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
The Husarian equivalent of Godwin.
http://listverse.com/2013/03/12/10-w...ned-the-world/
http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5...ned_india_.pdf
Quote:
The Indian trade was ruined through restrictive trade practices. During the early stages of
Industrial revolution, Indian goods then exceedingly competitive were levied 70 to 80 %
duties. Even later, the machine made British goods enjoyed 10 to 27 percent duty
advantage over Indian goods manufactured by traditional means. As the Indian finished
goods became less and less competitive, the policies slowly made India an agricultural
colony, and the exports of raw goods feeding the British Empire, rose as finished goods
exports fell. Impoverished masses from the Indian industrial centres rushed to villages to
agriculture. The landowners were already heavily taxed far in excess of previous foreign
rulers. Then the British changed the law, and allowed the new Œcapital holders’ to own
the land in India. The British bought lands for plantations, which were manned by Indian
slave labour. Thus even the agricultural export profits benefited only the British
plantation owners, and not the starving labourers. Let us look at the details of how this
was done. It was a deliberate policy of the Board of Directors of the East India Company,
since 1769. In the early nineteenth century the duty on Muslin and Calico was more than
27 and 71 percent ad valorem, respectively. Even then, British manufacturers were
unable to compete with Indian Manufacturers; hence Britain prohibited the import of
Calico cloths. Heavy protective duties -- 70 and 80 percent, respectively- were imposed
on the Indian silk and cotton goods in England. These ruined those industries in India,
while British goods were imported into India at nominal duty.
[...]
By 1850, India, which had for centuries exported cotton goods to the whole world, was
importing one-fourth of all British cotton exports. In any technology revolution, old
methods must make way for the new ones. But during the industrial revolution, which
was taking place in Britain, the resulting ruin of the millions of artisans and weavers in
India was not accompanied by the growth of new forms of industry in India. The old
populous towns like Dacca, Surat and Murshidabad (which Clive in 1757 had described
as Œextensive, populous, and rich as the city of London) and the like were in a few years
rendered desolate under the ŒPax Britannica’. The population of Dacca, the Manchester
of India, decreased from 150,000 to 30,000! In 1890, Sir Henry Cotton wrote, „ less than
a hundred years ago, the whole commerce of Dacca was estimated at ten million rupees
and its population at 200,000. In 1787 Dacca’s muslin exports to England amounted to 3
million rupees; in 1817 they had ceased altogether. The arts of spinning and weaving∑.
have now become extinct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ev...ined_the_World
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Thank you for the compliment Hus.:bow:
About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
Thank you for the compliment Hus.:bow:
About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?
More relevantly, does the history of India mean that we were wrong to intervene in Iraq because it added to the sum of human suffering, and correspondingly wrong to not intervene in Syria because it added to the sum of human suffering? Constructive criticism accepts the unavoidable fact that people will make errors of judgement, and establish guidelines that all know and will operate by. Since WWI, the basic guideline has been self determination, the ability to choose one's government and form of government free from outside interference, with the corresponding inference that empires should be disestablished and colonies made independent. The British empire is gone, and India is independent, and there are diplomatic relations between Britain and its former colonies. So why does Husar bring up India when I'm arguing that we have no business interfering in the affairs of other countries?
I point you to Orwell's observation of Communist apologists, who operate by the guideline that Anglo-America is wrong, and will twist their perception of reality to support that argument. Start with the conclusion, then find an argument to support that conclusion.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
A German lecturing a Briton on the evils of empire. What did you guys do with your last empire, may I ask?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
Thank you for the compliment Hus.:bow:
About this matter...I am not sure i want to dive into this can of worms. Maybe the question concerning issues like this is: How long we have to carry the burden of our ancestors? Is Pannonian´s job to defend what British did at India during 19th century based on their 19th century values, or should our US members still feel bad about the treatment of American natives? Is such relevant at all?
As spmetla said, it is relevant in the context that the present is a result of the past. I never said Pannonian should feel guilty about any of that, just that he can't blame everything entirely on the Indians, Africans or whoever of today. Their views, behavior etc. are a result of what their parents did and taught them and that was partially a result of what colonialism did to them. All we can do is try not to repeat those mistakes of the past and perhaps let those wounds heal.
Denying any wrongdoing on the other hand just leads to more rejection on the other side, especially when our behavior today perpetuates some of the injustices created in and left over from the past.
I don't feel personally guilty for WW2, why would I expect the British to feel personally guilty for Colonialism?
If De Beers (or Shell, or another Western Corporation) still exploits a post-colonial world order in order to exploit African countries and transfer all the profits to the accounts of rich European "landowners" and we are somehow okay with that while we blame Africans for being so poor, that's a different story...
If the poor Africans were to murder everyone at DeBeers and their local supporters because that's the only way for them to profit from the diamond trade as a people, we'd probably call them terrorists instead of saying it's self-determination. :dizzy2:
Think about things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/he...king-laws.html
Quote:
Alarmed about rising smoking rates among young women, Namibia, in southern Africa, passed a tobacco control law in 2010 but quickly found itself bombarded with stern warnings from the tobacco industry that the new statute violated the country’s obligations under trade treaties.
Continue reading the main story
FEATURED COMMENT
barbara8101 Philadelphia
What is really under discussion in this article is whether tobacco companies have a right to kill people. In my view, that sums it up.
270 COMMENTS
“We have bundles and bundles of letters from them,” said Namibia’s health minister, Dr. Richard Kamwi.
Three years later, the government, fearful of a punishingly expensive legal battle, has yet to carry out a single major provision of the law, like limiting advertising or placing large health warnings on cigarette packaging.
I fully expect Pannonian to say that if they're independent countries, it is their fault for signing the trade treaty, completely ignoring that they're desperate to regain any kind of industry and don't have the same education standards whereas we employ lawyers they probably couldn't even afford to write and negotiate these contracts.
My point is we should know better if we're educated and moral people. If we just exploit them because we can, then we're not morally superior in any way. :shrug:
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
As spmetla said, it is relevant in the context that the present is a result of the past. I never said Pannonian should feel guilty about any of that, just that he can't blame everything entirely on the Indians, Africans or whoever of today. Their views, behavior etc. are a result of what their parents did and taught them and that was partially a result of what colonialism did to them. All we can do is try not to repeat those mistakes of the past and perhaps let those wounds heal.
Denying any wrongdoing on the other hand just leads to more rejection on the other side, especially when our behavior today perpetuates some of the injustices created in and left over from the past.
I don't feel personally guilty for WW2, why would I expect the British to feel personally guilty for Colonialism?
If De Beers (or Shell, or another Western Corporation) still exploits a post-colonial world order in order to exploit African countries and transfer all the profits to the accounts of rich European "landowners" and we are somehow okay with that while we blame Africans for being so poor, that's a different story...
If the poor Africans were to murder everyone at DeBeers and their local supporters because that's the only way for them to profit from the diamond trade as a people, we'd probably call them terrorists instead of saying it's self-determination. :dizzy2:
Think about things like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/he...king-laws.html
I fully expect Pannonian to say that if they're independent countries, it is their fault for signing the trade treaty, completely ignoring that they're desperate to regain any kind of industry and don't have the same education standards whereas we employ lawyers they probably couldn't even afford to write and negotiate these contracts.
My point is we should know better if we're educated and moral people. If we just exploit them because we can, then we're not morally superior in any way. :shrug:
So how does that translate into a set of guidelines for how states should behave towards areas of conflict like Syria? I've already accepted that Britain were in the wrong over Iraq, despite opposing it at the time, and that we should abandon the tenets of neoconservatism and revert to the default of self determination and non-interference. Which, BTW, you've declined to agree should be a default. I don't claim to speak for other countries, as I believe in practising what I preach, and since I preach non-interference, then I don't have the right to say what other countries should do. I'm ok with Kage's example of self determination, and if they can make their statehood work, good luck to them. But I'd like Britain to stay well clear of affairs in the ME, whatever moral or humanitarian arguments people may want to poke at us, along with references to an empire which they constantly remind us we no longer have.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
So how does that translate into a set of guidelines for how states should behave towards areas of conflict like Syria? I've already accepted that Britain were in the wrong over Iraq, despite opposing it at the time, and that we should abandon the tenets of neoconservatism and revert to the default of self determination and non-interference. Which, BTW, you've declined to agree should be a default. I don't claim to speak for other countries, as I believe in practising what I preach, and since I preach non-interference, then I don't have the right to say what other countries should do. I'm ok with Kage's example of self determination, and if they can make their statehood work, good luck to them. But I'd like Britain to stay well clear of affairs in the ME, whatever moral or humanitarian arguments people may want to poke at us, along with references to an empire which they constantly remind us we no longer have.
Since every conflict is different, I don't think there can be a guideline. In general I prefer your standard of non-interference over playing the white man's burden game of trying to fix everything with force. However, if you government began to slaughter you, I might decide that it would be better to come to your aid.
The big problem is that even though we live in the information age, it can be hard to decide who is the "innocent" side in a conflict and when it is appropriate to help one side and when it isn't. You and I probably have worse information than our governments though and the biggest problem here is when governments decide based on what's best for their own strategic resource situation regardless of human lives or similar.
If you go with the guideline approach, you might end up being "right" in 50% of cases and wrong in the other 50% regardless of the guideline you choose. At least if you discuss an issue with a genuine concern for the people affected, you can claim you tried your best instead of hiding behind a standard MO while real humans actually get slaughtered by the millions in some cases.
About Syria in particular I can only say that it seems really hard to decide with my knowledge, it's a very complex issue and I won't claim to know what is or would have been best. Some problems cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, but it may already help to try and support/shelter the civilian population as best as possible. The government usually has experts and intelligence services to help with such decisions. Of course if they just represent corporate interests... :shrug:
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Since every conflict is different, I don't think there can be a guideline. In general I prefer your standard of non-interference over playing the white man's burden game of trying to fix everything with force. However, if you government began to slaughter you, I might decide that it would be better to come to your aid.
The big problem is that even though we live in the information age, it can be hard to decide who is the "innocent" side in a conflict and when it is appropriate to help one side and when it isn't. You and I probably have worse information than our governments though and the biggest problem here is when governments decide based on what's best for their own strategic resource situation regardless of human lives or similar.
If you go with the guideline approach, you might end up being "right" in 50% of cases and wrong in the other 50% regardless of the guideline you choose. At least if you discuss an issue with a genuine concern for the people affected, you can claim you tried your best instead of hiding behind a standard MO while real humans actually get slaughtered by the millions in some cases.
About Syria in particular I can only say that it seems really hard to decide with my knowledge, it's a very complex issue and I won't claim to know what is or would have been best. Some problems cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, but it may already help to try and support/shelter the civilian population as best as possible. The government usually has experts and intelligence services to help with such decisions. Of course if they just represent corporate interests... :shrug:
Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly slaughtering his subjects/citizens. How did that turn out when we intervened? Iraq is the definitive example of what happens when you intervene for what you reckon are good intentions, but there is enough of an implied argument that you did it for self gain. When that happens, as with Tony Blair, your reputation is destroyed. Shame, as he had enough of a track record of intervening for humanitarian purposes without prospect of gain (cf. Kosovo, and especially Sierra Leone). In the case of Sierra Leone, Blair's name is still gold in Africa, where his name is the guarantor of good intentions between states and NGOs. Things could be very much better if people would just accept that Blair made a mistake in judgement over Iraq, without attributing everything else that's been used to tarnish him. Still, what's done is done, and if people don't want another Iraq, then it means abandoning the Syrians (and Rohingyans) to their fate. Makes no difference to me either way.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly slaughtering his subjects/citizens. How did that turn out when we intervened? Iraq is the definitive example of what happens when you intervene for what you reckon are good intentions, but there is enough of an implied argument that you did it for self gain. When that happens, as with Tony Blair, your reputation is destroyed. Shame, as he had enough of a track record of intervening for humanitarian purposes without prospect of gain (cf. Kosovo, and especially Sierra Leone). In the case of Sierra Leone, Blair's name is still gold in Africa, where his name is the guarantor of good intentions between states and NGOs. Things could be very much better if people would just accept that Blair made a mistake in judgement over Iraq, without attributing everything else that's been used to tarnish him. Still, what's done is done, and if people don't want another Iraq, then it means abandoning the Syrians (and Rohingyans) to their fate. Makes no difference to me either way.
I see what you mean, though in 2003 Saddam wasn't slaughtering his citizens en masse IIRC. That's why the CIA came up with bogus reasons about WMDs and terrorist support after all. If we were to invade every country where the government kills some citizend every month, we'll have to invade the USA and China, too. Hussein should have been dethroned in the first Gulf War actually, but that was obviously not Blair's fault. I'm not sure whether Iraq was just an honest mistake though given the previously cited bogus reasons for the invasion. It might have been perceived much better if they had actually found any WMDs or proven that he supported Al Queda.
I'll admit that I was in favor of the invasion back then and believed the WMD stuff. Then again I wasn't even allowed to vote yet and once it became clear that the reasons were bogus, I began to view things in a different light. Can't say I was ever sure about the whole "it was all about the oil" thing though, the left jumps to conclusions in these cases as well. :shrug:
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
I see what you mean, though in 2003 Saddam wasn't slaughtering his citizens en masse IIRC. That's why the CIA came up with bogus reasons about WMDs and terrorist support after all. If we were to invade every country where the government kills some citizend every month, we'll have to invade the USA and China, too. Hussein should have been dethroned in the first Gulf War actually, but that was obviously not Blair's fault. I'm not sure whether Iraq was just an honest mistake though given the previously cited bogus reasons for the invasion. It might have been perceived much better if they had actually found any WMDs or proven that he supported Al Queda.
I'll admit that I was in favor of the invasion back then and believed the WMD stuff. Then again I wasn't even allowed to vote yet and once it became clear that the reasons were bogus, I began to view things in a different light. Can't say I was ever sure about the whole "it was all about the oil" thing though, the left jumps to conclusions in these cases as well. :shrug:
I opposed the invasion at the time because I researched the subject and concluded that, WMDs or not, al-Qaeda or not, there was little chance of the settlement turning out well, and a near certain probability of it turning out badly. I didn't oppose it because it was wrong. I opposed it because it was stupid. I did swallow the arguments on the US side about oil, but over time I've concluded that Bush was also motivated mainly by naive idealism. Blair was motivated more by the choice of backing our American allies or not, as they were going in anyway, with his idealism being the tipping factor. Personally, I'd have let the Americans do whatever they willed, without our hand in it as well.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
I opposed the invasion at the time because I researched the subject and concluded that, WMDs or not, al-Qaeda or not, there was little chance of the settlement turning out well, and a near certain probability of it turning out badly. I didn't oppose it because it was wrong. I opposed it because it was stupid. I did swallow the arguments on the US side about oil, but over time I've concluded that Bush was also motivated mainly by naive idealism. Blair was motivated more by the choice of backing our American allies or not, as they were going in anyway, with his idealism being the tipping factor. Personally, I'd have let the Americans do whatever they willed, without our hand in it as well.
The neocons in his admin had convinced him of the strategic value of the move.
With both Afghanistan and Iraq dominated by US/NATO forces, Iran would be strategically 'pinned.'
Moreover, the large bulk of the US officials were convinced that WMD work continued in Iraq, because we had sources that confirmed us that Saddam was receiving reports on such. We forgot, in our rush to judgement, that most of the government of a dictator tells him what he wants to hear as opposed to the facts. Since we knew he wanted to pursue them we assumed that all the inspectors were being fooled. We also based our intel on persons who had a grudge against Saddam and had their own agendas that included his removal.
Combine that with good old fashioned selective listening and you get....A colossal intelligence miscue.
We then promptly invaded, kicked over the apple cart, and waited for the spontaneous return to democratic freedom that we just KNEW was burning in the hearts of every Iraqi.
Pretty much we were dumbunnies soup to nuts.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Don't forget that Saddam was also assuming that we wouldn't invade without a resolution via the UN Security Council. He'd thought that Bush was just playing hardball to get more access for the weapons inspectors and because he (Saddam) thought he'd had a weapons program he wouldn't allow that. End result Saddam thinks he's calling Bush's bluff and Bush thinks Saddam has a weapons program.
The post-war planning I'll always lay on Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer, and GEN Franks. For a few months after the capture of Baghdad there was a window when we could have created the process for transition to a more democratic government but blew it due to poor policy decisions. De-Ba'athificiation, disbanding the Iraqi Army, and not really having a good plan to quickly restore infrastructure or re-establish law and order.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Not dead yet?
Well with two armies bearing down from different directions, this seems a lock.
Then again, without coordination and cooperation it could get ugly fast.
Each side supports a narrative that paints the other as selfish invaders here to dispossess the people of the region. Trump's past comments about "...why didn't we just keep the oil..." probably don't help.
Two armies, each with the goal of defeating ISIS; but are they allies, enemies or competitors?
Once again, the lack of a coherent strategy for the region and the war, puts America (and its allies) in the position of "winning every battle enroute to losing the war.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/04/...tate-us-assad/
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spmetla
Don't forget that Saddam was also assuming that we wouldn't invade without a resolution via the UN Security Council. He'd thought that Bush was just playing hardball to get more access for the weapons inspectors and because he (Saddam) thought he'd had a weapons program he wouldn't allow that. End result Saddam thinks he's calling Bush's bluff and Bush thinks Saddam has a weapons program.
The post-war planning I'll always lay on Rumsfeld, Paul Bremer, and GEN Franks. For a few months after the capture of Baghdad there was a window when we could have created the process for transition to a more democratic government but blew it due to poor policy decisions. De-Ba'athificiation, disbanding the Iraqi Army, and not really having a good plan to quickly restore infrastructure or re-establish law and order.
I'd have settle for a BAD plan to re-establish infrastructure and law and order. I don't think we even had that.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Seamus Fermanagh
I'd have settle for a BAD plan to re-establish infrastructure and law and order. I don't think we even had that.
Something like the British using Japanese soldiers to keep down the locals in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) in 1945? IIRC we did the same in French Indochina (Vietnam) as well.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
Not dead yet?
Well with two armies bearing down from different directions, this seems a lock.
Then again, without coordination and cooperation it could get ugly fast.
Each side supports a narrative that paints the other as selfish invaders here to dispossess the people of the region. Trump's past comments about "...why didn't we just keep the oil..." probably don't help.
Two armies, each with the goal of defeating ISIS; but are they allies, enemies or competitors?
Once again, the lack of a coherent strategy for the region and the war, puts America (and its allies) in the position of "winning every battle enroute to losing the war.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/04/...tate-us-assad/
I am pretty sure that Assad and Syrian Kurds have some sort of understanding. It showed when Turkey pushed its "freedomfighters" to Northern Syria. Soon after Assad sent Syrian army troops to the Western edge of Syrian Kurdish area as shield from the Turkish backed forces.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pannonian
A German lecturing a Briton on the evils of empire. What did you guys do with your last empire, may I ask?
Can I lecture both of you? Our empire collapsed in the 14th century, after lasting a whopping 25 years.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarmatian
Can I lecture both of you? Our empire collapsed in the 14th century, after lasting a whopping 25 years.
I thought that was about par for the Balkans, post Alexandros.
I suppose the Turks 'technically' were around longer, but their "empire" was a little slipshod.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Apparently ISIS capital Raqqa has fallen to SDF. Same day Kirkuk is falling to Iraqi/Iran forces at Iraq.One has to wonder what will now wait for the Syrian Kurdish forces as they have done their work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/...ic_state_group
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kagemusha
Aren't the Syrian front Kurds supposed to be the less "warm and fuzzy" branch?
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
It really is hard to capture what will happen next in a concise nugget.
Stirring up rhetoric against Iran, just as ISIS seems tamed for the moment does not strike me as clever.
The Middle East "A Machine of Many Moving Parts"; can you settle the simmer in Iraq without mollifying Iran? Probably not.
The Kurds, spot their best chance at a state ever; they could be a proxy for anyone not interested in stability right now.
The U.S. removed Saddam, is it up to the task of smoothing the Sunni/Shia divide without someone much like him? Again, that road probably runs through Iran.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...71.htmlhttp://
For the Shia militias, times might be pretty good.
"There is disorder under Heaven, and the situation is excellent"
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/18/...tting-started/
Any policy that ignores Iran's interests is doomed to fail.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HopAlongBunny
The Kurds, spot their best chance at a state ever; they could be a proxy for anyone not interested in stability right now.
It is a mistake to consider Kurds as ones united in their cause. As the Kirkuk episode has shown, there are two major camps which are far from friendly to each other to say nothing of being united. So their opponents can use it to their end.
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
Quite right.
The problem still remains though. Choices need to be made.
If the U.S. does not make and pursue goals, others will.
Russia is perfectly willing to make the choices for them, so is Iran.
As much as people (myself included) might bemoan the U.S. sticking its fingers in every pot, the other possibilities are not very attractive.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/18/...al-about-iraq/
-
Re: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!
It sure is a puzzle. Right now it seems that these guys are on the top of the game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...Iraq_coalition
Other big local players are Saudi- Arabia,Turkey and Israel. Outside the area the major one is US and Russia from RSII coalition. For US the only really reliable ally from these is Israel, but in turn everyone else at the area hate Israel.
Saudi-Arabia tends to spawn wahhabist groups like Al Qaida, which is a big no no in the West.
Turkey doesnt like anything concerning Kurds and is also problematic for the West, because of the bad relations with Greece and the dictator like politics of Erdogan..
Iran is Iran. Russia is Russia. Syria and Iraq governments are now more or less puppets of the previously mentioned Russia and Iran.
Kurdish in Iraq are divided after the humiliation at Kirkuk. KDP and Barzani family are hated by the people because of corruption and inability to do anything productive at the current crisis.KDP is blaming it all on PUK. At the same time PUK is tearing itself apart as part of PUK, namely the Talabani family is now seen as traitors and pro Iran even within PUK. Meanwhile the Gorran movement is demanding that both KDP and PUK should be stripped off power.
The Syrian Kurdish are way too close with PKK from Turkey, which makes any close relations with them for the West a red cloth for Turkey.
There are the pics for partners for the West. No matter what someone always gets upset.
