Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

I have to say you both (Eldo and Orwell) put forth very good, convincing arguments.  And it's rare to see youth being the realist versus the *cough* more mature being the idealist.  I think it comes from the younger being in the country that is actually subject to all the slings of arrows of trying to 'implant' democracy.

No, I don't know what the answer is.  In the case of Americans, I'm afraid our initial idealism has been beaten down by the wearying examples of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And before that Vietnam.  It would take an almost messianic leader to pull us through this to the possible success at the far end of a very long and dark tunnel.  We're pretty short on that type of leadership, and if found it would more likely be directed inward to solve our own problems first.

Why did democracy building work in Germany (half of it, anyway) and Japan and never since?  In Japan at least there was never a total removal of leadership, while in Germany it was entrenched in the network of Europe, a triumphant Europe which was only briefly defeated and only needed to rebuild economically.  To be honest I don't know much about the reconstruction of Germany, but my feeling is that being a part of a much larger rebuilding effort made a vast difference.

Who the fuck are all these people?- Lance

Just some old "friends" of one of our moderators....- David

I think I missed something- what are you two on about?  

Petty wrote:I think I missed something- what are you two on about?

I think Lance was a bit taken aback by the Banks clan.

How did Lance spend so much time on here without running across the Banks clan?   An integral part of the Forumshire experience.

the problem with Middle Eastern countries being 'liberated' from dictators, is that no matter how many foreign troops you throw at the violence and no matter how hard the UN clamp down on the radicals, they will never just give up and become peaceable, there are too many ethnic and ancient tribal rivalries, almost medieval mentalities as regards women, religious opposites, to ever have real lasting peace. Assads father forced them all together under a common Nationalism, but underneath after the strongman act started to crumble after he died, all the old rivalries and bitterness came out. They are a hopelessly divided people, it would take only a new strongman to force them to the table, its not going to happen. Egypt is the same thing, the Islamists against the moderates, I reckon the only thing that may stop the violence is the thought their country will become bankrupt if violence continues, they rely on tourism to a great extent and if that is threatened they will realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Truly said, Mrs Figg.    The question is should the strongmen come from outside or inside?  It's a huge investment to make if it's not your country, or if you are not making a fine profit from it.  The second approach is what made colonialism, um, "work".  Just sending troops over from the goodness of our hearts is unfortunately not sustainable.

I think this is where the resolution of the Eldo/Orwell argument lies.  Yes, go and impose a democracy, but turn a hefty profit from it for at least a generation so you can afford to stick with it. And by the way, don't be too benevolent or they may never see the point in putting together their own democracy movement.  Time-tested...is it what we want?

I dont think democracy can be imposed, the people have to want it, some people evidently dont, like the North Koreans. Democracy seems to be a Western mindset, because it includes all members of society, women included too. I dont know how compatable Islamist societies are with liberal democracy, they all seem to have ruling families/religious groups  with an iron grip on power and wealth. They are very suspicious of Western democracy because the US supports Israel, their main enemy, so anyone connected with democracy is seen as suspect.

Hard to tell what the average mindset it, we only meet a select group that come here or that deal with tourists, and they are rarely islamist. The islamist mindset is definitely anti-democracy, but how many people in the middle east are actually of that mindset?  

yeah, could try to find a study on google, but feeling lazy.

halfwise wrote:Why did democracy building work in Germany (half of it, anyway) and Japan and never since?  In Japan at least there was never a total removal of leadership, while in Germany it was entrenched in the network of Europe, a triumphant Europe which was only briefly defeated and only needed to rebuild economically.  To be honest I don't know much about the reconstruction of Germany, but my feeling is that being a part of a much larger rebuilding effort made a vast difference.

There were a lot of differences with Germany and Japan compared to attempts at nation-building since then. Some will point to Germany and Japan both having a history of democracy in the Interwar period before becoming fascist. I think this is sometimes overemphasized by the prophets of democracy, but Germany and Japan were also highly modern countries with developed economies. Both were devastated by the war, of course, but they were rebuilding afterwards rather than starting from scratch. Additionally, they had professional political classes who were able to adapt to the post-war order and guide the country towards recovery while reducing corruption and factionalism during the crucial rebuilding years.

In the case of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq we've supported governments that are unpopular with many, and in some cases most of the population. (South Vietnam was probably the worst example of this since the US' initial man was aggressively anti-Buddhist in a Buddhist-majority country.) We were also coming into countries with comparatively few viable political or economic institutions, due to French colonialism in the case of Vietnam, decades of civil war in Afghanistan, and several major factors in Iraq. In Iraq and Afghanistan we kicked out the leaders but were left with corrupt and underqualified replacements who publicly endorsed democracy mainly because it gained them US support but didn't follow through on it. Mrs Figg's point about the fragmentation of Iraqi and Afghan society is also very important because the chaos of invasion and civil war brings all the divisions to the forefront (and gives them all guns).

David H wrote:I doubt if you would have liked the Pilgrims if you could have met them in person Orwell. They were more interested in their own freedoms than those of others, and I don't think women's rights were high on their list either.  Native Americans still refer to Thanksgiving  as "Thankyouforstealingourland&killingourpeopleday.

I'm reasonably well aware of the Actuality and the Mythology as it comes out of the mouth of Conservative Americans. The Myth is about Americans finding Freedom - but, yes, it was a selfish kind of Freedom, true, not extended to just anyone. I was being a bit facetious really - though the bit about Freedom for women and girls was fairly straight.

halfwise wrote:I have to say you both (Eldo and Orwell) put forth very good, convincing arguments.  And it's rare to see youth being the realist versus the *cough* more mature being the idealist.  I think it comes from the younger being in the country that is actually subject to all the slings of arrows of trying to 'implant' democracy.

Don't agree about Eldo being the realist. He's the spruiker of what other Lefties tell him. Just like Petty. But I am the idealistic one, that's true. My heart is true and I know that the idealists who commit achieve the results.  

halfwise wrote:No, I don't know what the answer is.  In the case of Americans, I'm afraid our initial idealism has been beaten down by the wearying examples of Iraq and Afghanistan.  And before that Vietnam.  It would take an almost messianic leader to pull us through this to the possible success at the far end of a very long and dark tunnel.  We're pretty short on that type of leadership, and if found it would more likely be directed inward to solve our own problems first.

All those failures were due to a lack of committment. They were lost at home because of soft willed people who did not let American forces do their job. They were undermined left right and centre by their own people. No wonder they failed.

halfwise wrote:Why did democracy building work in Germany (half of it, anyway) and Japan and never since?  In Japan at least there was never a total removal of leadership, while in Germany it was entrenched in the network of Europe, a triumphant Europe which was only briefly defeated and only needed to rebuild economically.  To be honest I don't know much about the reconstruction of Germany, but my feeling is that being a part of a much larger rebuilding effort made a vast difference.

Commitment did it. And patience. And persistence. Europe was once Mediaeval. It changed. Afghanistan is in the same boat. It's Mediaeval. Modernity has not taken root with enough folk yet, but change is happening, slowly. It will be set back again when the Americans leave. Leaving is the failure, not staying.

Germany and Japan didn't even change that much because they were already modern, developed countries.  They aren't even remotely comparable to Afghanistan.

NB Do you think that throwing around the word "lefty" like a slur is going to make people not notice that you have no evidence to suggest that the Afghan situation will turn around in defiance of both history and recent events?

Mrs Figg wrote:the problem with Middle Eastern countries being 'liberated' from dictators, is that no matter how many foreign troops you throw at the violence and no matter how hard the UN clamp down on the radicals, they will never just give up and become peaceable, there are too many ethnic and ancient tribal rivalries, almost medieval mentalities as regards women, religious opposites, to ever have real lasting peace. Assads father forced them all together under a common Nationalism, but underneath after the strongman act started to crumble after he died, all the old rivalries and bitterness came out. They are a hopelessly divided people, it would take only a new strongman to force them to the table, its not going to happen. Egypt is the same thing, the Islamists against the moderates, I reckon the only thing that may stop the violence is the thought their country will become bankrupt if violence continues, they rely on tourism to a great extent and if that is threatened they will realize they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

The trouble with Moderates is not their world view, but their commitment. Moderates tend to give up art the first sign of difficulty. Like most of the American public, unfortunately. Of course, they come up with clever apologetics to cover their spinelessness.

The UK parliament has narrowly voted against David Cameron's request for possible military action in Syria.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

thank goodness for that. common sense has prevailed and we wont be going to war anytime soon, Cameron has been well and truly embarrassed. I wonder if Obama will rethink now? this Whole situation could have run out of control, its quite scary really. They should try the diplomatic route first before they start dropping bombs. It could be the next Cuban missile thing if they are not careful, that area is a powderkeg just waiting to explode, if the West starts bombing terrorism will escalate Beyond anything we have seen before.

"NB Do you think that throwing around the word "lefty" like a slur is going to make people not notice that you have no evidence to suggest that the Afghan situation will turn around in defiance of both history and recent events?"

Slur? More thrown around like a 'tease'.  


The world was flat once, so it's still flat. We didn't win the Championship last year, so we can't this year.  Europe was Mediavel last Century, so it's Mediavel this Century. Japan was once Mediaevel, so it is now. I only know the evidence of change, Eldo. People who are committed to their beliefs create change - mostly through hard work and pain and persistence. That's the only evidence I need. If America stuck it out, then change would speed up. Giving up brings failure every time. History tells both of us that.

Umm.. is everyone having their computer going funny btw...? This site has gone all weird - at least at my end... Are you playing about with things, Eldo? I can't even bring up a Suspicious or an Angry smilee-thingee... Weird...

There's nothing to discuss if you're just going to post idealistic and/or ideological (is there a difference in your case? ) talking points rather than any concrete evidence, so I'm going to bow out of this sub-thread.

And smileys are still working for me.

My computer is behaving now.

What evidence do you want? Democracies evolved in parts of the world. They can evolve in other parts. What more evidence do you need?

Schools that girls can go to have been built in Afghanistan. When American troops go, they'll close. Change won't happen in that scenario.

I'm glad people are baulking at going into Syria, btw. I'm growing to like Assad and would hate America to support the Islamists like they once did in Afghanistan.  

... And I'm going to bed. You people are intolerable when I'm on nightshift...

get some sleep Skippy

Mrs Figg wrote:thank goodness for that. common sense has prevailed and we wont be going to war anytime soon, Cameron has been well and truly embarrassed. I wonder if Obama will rethink now? this Whole situation could have run out of control, its quite scary really. They should try the diplomatic route first before they start dropping bombs. It could be the next Cuban missile thing if they are not careful, that area is a powderkeg just waiting to explode, if the West starts bombing terrorism will escalate Beyond anything we have seen before.

Yeah, it appears that this vote was really decided by the Tory MPs since about 30 Labour MPs were absent.  I'll be curious to see how this bides for Cameron's future as a leader since he already seemed to be on shaky ground with his party.  Also interesting what the long-term implications, if any, for British foreign policy will be since they've been following the US' lead for quite a while.

Speaking of the UK though, Obama seems willing to go into Syria even without international assistance. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html

EDIT: can anyone who's familiar with British politics/history say if previous PMs have asked the House of Commons for approval of military action instead of just ordering attacks on their own?

Orwell wrote:What evidence do you want? Democracies evolved in parts of the world. They can evolve in other parts. What more evidence do you need?

That's a painfully simplistic war of looking at the picture since democracy's track record around the world is actually incredibly spotty.  I've tried discussing the circumstances in which democracies have emerged in less-developed countries since World War II (since that's the category that Afghanistan falls into) but you seemed more interested in claiming that I don't care about oppression or women.

I'm glad people are baulking at going into Syria, btw. I'm growing to like Assad and would hate America to support the Islamists like they once did in Afghanistan.

No one likes Assad, but I'm glad we at least agree that funding Islamists is a bad idea.

... And I'm going to bed. You people are intolerable when I'm on nightshift...

Sleep well!

can anyone who's familiar with British politics/history say if previous PMs have asked the House of Commons for approval of military action instead of just ordering attacks on their own?- Eldo

Britain cant take military action on this scale without House of Commons Approval.
Even Blair had to first convince the House. They approved the war in Iraq.
I am surprised Cameron lost this- he has actually been on a big upswing with his own MP's.

I dont think they ever order attacks on their own, maybe Churchill did, but I think all modern PMs have always put it to the vote, hence the need for party whips to make sure they follow the party line and vote accordingly, I could be talking rubbish though. Petty will probably know this stuff.

Yeah you need the vote these days. No House approval no war.
Im not sure how far back that goes. I think, but Im not certain, Thatcher had to get the House vote for the Falklands. Ill need to check that.
As far as I know this vote rules out any sort of military action that is not approved by the UN- so no backing the US up this time if they decide to go it alone.