Was Assad correct all along

[Grumfutock]

rs1952 said:

But on the other hand:

Romania
East Germany
Poland
Uganda
Greece
Spain
Chile


There is no "one size fits all" answer

Of course it doesn't however I don't think Uganda is a very good example do you?

[Tyre Smoke]

Grumfutock said:

rs1952 said:

But on the other hand:

Romania
East Germany
Poland
Uganda
Greece
Spain
Chile


There is no "one size fits all" answer

Of course it doesn't however I don't think Uganda is a very good example do you?

Nor is East Germany. It was 'absorbed' into West Germany at huge expense and not without some reluctance by the populace. Or Greece, they are well in the financial mire, as are Spain. I have just come back from Romania and it is one of the most corrupt places and poorest in Europe. The average monthly wage is about £300. There is virtually no healthcare,bribes are commonplace. A friend of mine was lamenting that the politicians are all in it for themselves and at least under Ceaucescu everyone had a job that was secure, a home and knew what was what. Not ideal he said, but certainly no worse than things have been since.

That said, dicatatorship and/or strong Govt is not necessarily the answer for everyone.

[mcdjl]

Mr Gearchange said:

I used to be an idealist - and believed that we should intervene where necessary as an arbiter of peace and decency - as the referee with a big stick. The more I see of our interventions - particularly in the Middle East and Islamic states the more I think we should just leave it alone - we seem to make it worse for the locals and worse for our own domestic security.

These middle eastern civilisations have been around for a lot longer than us westerners - leave them to sort their own affairs out. If democracy really is something they want - they will find their own way to it eventually.

Being the referee with the big stick is fine. The problem is that the people that pay for the big stick don't want to pay for him indefinitely, which is what is needed. As soon as he leaves/turns his back the fighting will re-erupt. Whats needed is to let the fight get settled/new states emerge and the people get tired of fighting and realise that their lives can be better in other ways. Every country has been through that stage (see Uk civil war/republic, french revolution) and realised that ultimately the guy in charge might be pain but generally actually wants an easy life and as much as they can get. We forget that it took centuries for us to get equal rights votes for all men, votes for women etc, taking a huge struggle and wasn't gifted overnight. Why should anyone else find it any easier to change?

[Dog Star]

tom2019 said:

I wonder what percentage of people now think life was better under assad/gaddafi/saddam.

I can say that apart from any minorities that they were persecuting, that life in Syria/Libya/Iraq is worse for just about everyone, and in a big way. I fail to see any benefit in removing any of these leaders.

[AA999]

Mr Gearchange said:

We didn't though did we?
Whist we didn't put people on the ground (officially) we stood on the sidelines and meddled.
We barracked the regime for it's handling of the uprising - it was headline news every night about what Assad was doing to his people. We supplied the 'rebels' with funds and equipment.

Now we have a major issue with UK jihadists who have gone out there and will be returned battle hardened and radicalised - or who are now spilling over into Iraq with IS.

If we had just let Assad get on with it he would have crushed the uprising pretty quickly with some help from the Russians - but we made that very difficult for him. I'm not saying that would have been intrinsically 'right' - but it is arguably a better situation than we have now.

You might also argue that had we not gone into Iraq in the first place the region would have been kept stable and none of this would have happened in the first place. The Iraq war brought into play all manner of tribalists and fundamentalist from across the middle east - some stateless terror groups and other state sponsored and funded units from the likes of Iran.

I used to be an idealist - and believed that we should intervene where necessary as an arbiter of peace and decency - as the referee with a big stick. The more I see of our interventions - particularly in the Middle East and Islamic states the more I think we should just leave it alone - we seem to make it worse for the locals and worse for our own domestic security.

These middle eastern civilisations have been around for a lot longer than us westerners - leave them to sort their own affairs out. If democracy really is something they want - they will find their own way to it eventually.

Good reply.

[Mr Gearchange]

mcdjl said:

Mr Gearchange said:

I used to be an idealist - and believed that we should intervene where necessary as an arbiter of peace and decency - as the referee with a big stick. The more I see of our interventions - particularly in the Middle East and Islamic states the more I think we should just leave it alone - we seem to make it worse for the locals and worse for our own domestic security.

These middle eastern civilisations have been around for a lot longer than us westerners - leave them to sort their own affairs out. If democracy really is something they want - they will find their own way to it eventually.

Being the referee with the big stick is fine. The problem is that the people that pay for the big stick don't want to pay for him indefinitely, which is what is needed. As soon as he leaves/turns his back the fighting will re-erupt. Whats needed is to let the fight get settled/new states emerge and the people get tired of fighting and realise that their lives can be better in other ways. Every country has been through that stage (see Uk civil war/republic, french revolution) and realised that ultimately the guy in charge might be pain but generally actually wants an easy life and as much as they can get. We forget that it took centuries for us to get equal rights votes for all men, votes for women etc, taking a huge struggle and wasn't gifted overnight. Why should anyone else find it any easier to change?

The trouble is if you stay around for an extended period with a big fully funded stick you are then viewed as nothing more than an invading and occupying force. And that brings it's own set of problems as we saw in Iraq which just started attracting the lunatics from all over the globe to fight the infidel occupiers on Muslim soil.

You go in and depose the dictator - but you aren't viewed as liberators for very long - then having rolled over the under equipped and under trained regular forces you are into a guerrilla battle with very motivated religious zealots who aren't afraid to die or to take huge collateral damage in terms of the local populace.

The aftermath of the Iraq 'invasion' in fighting the militants in Fallujah was far far worse than the initial scrap against the regular army.

Then the UK becomes a target for terrorism as fundamentalists rally against the occupying force by attacking them at home.

So if you go in - smash the dictator and leave it doesn't work and creates a dangerous and unstable situation.

But if you go in and stick around it creates a dangerous and unstable situation.

There is no way to win this - other than to leave it well alone.

[mcdjl]

Mr Gearchange said:

The trouble is if you stay around for an extended period with a big fully funded stick you are then viewed as nothing more than an invading and occupying force. And that brings it's own set of problems as we saw in Iraq which just started attracting the lunatics from all over the globe to fight the infidel occupiers on Muslim soil.

You go in and depose the dictator - but you aren't viewed as liberators for very long - then having rolled over the under equipped and under trained regular forces you are into a guerrilla battle with very motivated religious zealots who aren't afraid to die or to take huge collateral damage in terms of the local populace.

The aftermath of the Iraq 'invasion' in fighting the militants in Fallujah was far far worse than the initial scrap against the regular army.

Then the UK becomes a target for terrorism as fundamentalists rally against the occupying force by attacking them at home.

So if you go in - smash the dictator and leave it doesn't work and creates a dangerous and unstable situation.

But if you go in and stick around it creates a dangerous and unstable situation.

There is no way to win this - other than to leave it well alone.

Agreed. Having a referee means having a set of rules and sanctions everyone agrees to. If you're a member of the UN/Geneva convention then maybe it might work, though lets face it has anyone actually tried it, as in really pushed it? Did they care about the punishment?
I struggle with the current apparent notion that borders are fixed and immovable, see the new country that wants to form 'Islamic State'. They've fought to occupy the land. If you don't want that country to exist fight it, otherwise you may have to accept reality. Don't begin to think that i think that i agree with what they do, I don't. However ideals are only worth as much as we're willing to fight for them. To go back to my school days we were taught the idea of a 'just war'. It had to have a purpose and be win-able amongst other things. Fighting IS wouldn't appear to have/be either, especially since we don't seem to want Assad, but we don't want the people fighting against him either.

[Murcielago_Boy]

In short, YES, Asad was right, and better for his own people AND global security.
As was Gadaffi.
As was Mubarak.
And sadly, even Saddam Hussein.

Don't interfere with cultures you don't understand. Just don't.

[Mermaid]

Murcielago_Boy said:

In short, YES, Assad was right, and better for his own people AND global security.
As was Gadaffi.
As was Mubarak.
And sadly, even Saddam Hussein.

Don't interfere with cultures you don't understand. Just don't.

'We are different countries, we have different histories, different stages of development"

[Amirhussain]

Grumfutock said:

Qwert1e said:

It also occurs to me as possible that if "the west" had stayed on-side with Saddam Huusein the Middle East might have ended up better off. But we will never know.

When he kept attacking other countries and using chemical warfare on civilians it became a bit tricky to continue to "stay on-side" with him.

Didn't the Yanks supply Saddam with weapons?

[Driller]

Mermaid said:

Murcielago_Boy said:

In short, YES, Assad was right, and better for his own people AND global security.
As was Gadaffi.
As was Mubarak.
And sadly, even Saddam Hussein.

Don't interfere with cultures you don't understand. Just don't.

'We are different countries, we have different histories, different stages of development"

All of the above.

[Grumfutock]

Amirhussain said:

Grumfutock said:

Qwert1e said:

It also occurs to me as possible that if "the west" had stayed on-side with Saddam Huusein the Middle East might have ended up better off. But we will never know.

When he kept attacking other countries and using chemical warfare on civilians it became a bit tricky to continue to "stay on-side" with him.

Didn't the Yanks supply Saddam with weapons?

As did many other Western countries (France $25 billion worth) until he started gassing civilians.

[Mermaid]

Grumfutock said:

Amirhussain said:

Grumfutock said:

Qwert1e said:

It also occurs to me as possible that if "the west" had stayed on-side with Saddam Huusein the Middle East might have ended up better off. But we will never know.

When he kept attacking other countries and using chemical warfare on civilians it became a bit tricky to continue to "stay on-side" with him.

Didn't the Yanks supply Saddam with weapons?

As did many other Western countries (France $25 billion worth) until he started gassing civilians.

Moral of the story - do not sell arms to "third world" countries. The Yanks did sell guns to the Red Indians, but also a lot of whiskey

[DrDoofenshmirtz]

America is the biggest problem in all of this.
They had lots of toys they wanted to play with, but nowhere to play (i.e. their military).
They were just itching for an excuse, and I'm afraid 9/11 gave then that excuse.

As I said on page 1, these places need a dictatorship (far from ideal obviously). Without one, we are where we are now - FUBAR'ed.

[Mermaid]

DrDoofenshmirtz said:

America is the biggest problem in all of this.
They had lots of toys they wanted to play with, but nowhere to play (i.e. their military).
They were just itching for an excuse, and I'm afraid 9/11 gave then that excuse.

This was discussed quite widely at the time in 2003 - Bush & his mates made plenty of money with the "shock and awe" experience.

[anonymous-user]

Problems don't stop magically at borders, and bad government and associated instability can impact us, given how connected the world is, so I don't think that the west is wrong to get involved; but the problem is that when it does get involved it tends to do so in a half arsed fashion, and often for the wrong reasons, including selective and selfish reasons.

[JagLover]

Assad was not right all along at all. A pro-democracy movement was suppressed with much bloodshed and the country then degenerated into civil war. This had nothing to do with foreign elements and everything to do with a regime that suppresses the majority Sunni population.

I think it should be recognised that ISIS is mainly composed of foreign fighters in Syria and was a relatively late arrival on the scene.

How a regime that slaughters civilians by the thousand to stay in power, gassing many, can be considered a "stable" solution is beyond me really. The problem is that with so much blood having been shed his opponents are not likely to be any more merciful to Alawites should they achieve victory.

[anonymous-user]

I agree.

I am not surprised to see so many PH'ers being apologists for dictators, but it's still a tad depressing.

[Grumfutock]

Breadvan72 said:

I agree.

I am not surprised to see so many PH'ers being apologists for dictators, but it's still a tad depressing.

I agree but I still maintain that some countries in that part of the world seem more stable with a strong man in charge and equally seem to have endless problems when that person is removed suddenly. Once that power vacum is created they seem to struggle to fill it.

Just an observation not support for dictatorships.

[Mermaid]

Grumfutock said:

Breadvan72 said:

I agree.

I am not surprised to see so many PH'ers being apologists for dictators, but it's still a tad depressing.

I agree but I still maintain that some countries in that part of the world seem more stable with a strong man in charge and equally seem to have endless problems when that person is removed suddenly. Once that power vacum is created they seem to struggle to fill it.

Just an observation not support for dictatorships.

Agreed, we know their history and we want them to run at our pace and they can hardly walk. Autocratic democracy.