Middle East and North Africa 19

[Biglose]

Perhaps, in the light of the fact that the lesser evil willingly enabled the greater evil so it could better appear the lesser evil this distinction doesn't have the weight some people are giving it. Despite the Assad regime's rhetoric it, like many other Middle Eastern secular dictatorships, has a history of cynical collaborations with Islamist terror groups to further its own ends.

So does the west. So does nearly everybody. National socialism, Stalinism, Capitalism all bad in some way, so they are all the same. Thats just silly.

But what makes me very vary of such statements is, that they are often (like in this case) used to justify adding gasoline to the fire with the justification that if you do not, a bad guy may win. But if there are only bad guy, well you are more or less doing it to keep the fire burning. And thats a kind of foreign policy (often practiced by the US and some europeen countries) which really angers me. And like a miracle its again those countries who do not take in refugees and close their borders...

 

 

Well, if we assume the alternative will at some point become the new dominant group (which is... well, at least not all that unlikely) shouldn't we encourage the creation of better alternatives, instead of the strengthening of the worst possible alternatives? Do we have to support the "lesser evil" no matter what, even in the face of 

 

Look, I'm not supporting military intervention, so the Iraq war isn't really something you might lay at my door. All I'm saying is that we should be more discriminate in who we actively support instead of just tolerating them.

And how are we supporting Assad? We are not. Nobody really asked for that. What people say is, that we should focus on ISIS and other terrorist organisations and if the russians want to bring in order in general let them do it.

[Enguerrand]

 

But what if the lesser evil (secular dictator) inhibits the growth of the good (democracy) by propping up the bigger evil (fundamentalist religion)? If a dictator is ultimately toppled, I'd like the strongest alternative to him to be a democratic movement, not a radical religious group. So why should we support dictatorships that foster extremist groups over those who work towards democratization? Why not tie support beyond the most basic "We're not embargoing you" to steps towards democratization?

 

Or, alternatively, do you think people should not be able to decide about their government themselves?

 

Democracy is something that only works when people trust in the governments ability to protect their lives and resources. and where the common good is clear to define. When this isn't the case it's just mob rule. In nations sharply divided by ethnic, religious and cultural differences it's very hard to establish a common good, it's more likely the least bad, satisfying no one. Look at Iraq when the US conquered and enforced democratic elections, the voters had no faith in the process or the government so they simply voted after ethnic and religious lines, This way they protect themselves and their kind over the nation they don't identify themselves with.

Assad remains in power because he is supported by ethnic and religious minorites that will be persecuted and massacred in a Sunni dominated democracy.

 

It's not happenstance that homogenous nations of the world are more peaceful, have faith in the government, embrace democracy, have a  lenient justice system, and extensive welfare. Solidarity is easy to establish and rewarded.

[The guy from the Vale]

Well, if we assume the alternative will at some point become the new dominant group (which is... well, at least not all that unlikely) shouldn't we encourage the creation of better alternatives, instead of the strengthening of the worst possible alternatives? Do we have to support the "lesser evil" no matter what, even in the face of 

 

Look, I'm not supporting military intervention, so the Iraq war isn't really something you might lay at my door. All I'm saying is that we should be more discriminate in who we actively support instead of just tolerating them.

[Shryke]

 

Democracy is something that only works when people trust in the governments ability to protect their lives and resources. and where the common good is clear to define. When this isn't the case it's just mob rule. In nations sharply divided by ethnic, religious and cultural differences it's very hard to establish a common good, it's more likely the least bad, satisfying no one. Look at Iraq when the US conquered and enforced democratic elections, the voters had no faith in the process or the government so they simply voted after ethnic and religious lines, This way they protect themselves and their kind over the nation they don't identify themselves with.

Assad remains in power because he is supported by ethnic and religious minorites that will be persecuted and massacred in a Sunni dominated democracy.

 

It's not happenstance that homogenous nations of the world are more peaceful, have faith in the government, embrace democracy, have a  lenient justice system, and extensive welfare. Solidarity is easy to establish and rewarded.

 

Uh, North America dude?

 

 

If the issue is a lack of nationalistic identification, the solution is not a more ethnically homogeneous nation, it's building the idea of a nation.

[Biglose]

 

Uh, North America dude?

 

 

If the issue is a lack of nationalistic identification, the solution is not a more ethnically homogeneous nation, it's building the idea of a nation.

Really? The prime example of two cultures (europeen and indian) living peacfully in a multicultural state.

It started more or less with people from more or less the same culture and more or less the same religion who more or less murdered the culturally different. Lets just be honest. And if you look at north america and compare public healthcare and social security to norway. Well.... The argument holds water. I know a lot of people do not like but people are like that.

I mean just look at north america the guy claiming he will restore social security is the guy wanting to build a fucking wall and deport 9 million people. And if you look how much better things like social security and welfare are handled withing the mormon subpart...

[Shryke]

Really? The prime example of two cultures (europeen and indian) living peacfully in a multicultural state.

It started more or less with people from more or less the same culture and more or less the same religion who more or less murdered the culturally different. Lets just be honest. And if you look at north america and compare public healthcare and social security to norway. Well.... The argument holds water. I know a lot of people do not like but people are like that.

I mean just look at north america the guy claiming he will restore social security is the guy wanting to build a fucking wall and deport 9 million people. And if you look how much better things like social security and welfare are handled withing the mormon subpart...

 

No, the prime example of like dozens and dozens of cultures living together in a multicultural state.

 

I mean, seriously dude, did you really think ignoring the history of the US or Canada was gonna fly or are you just so ignorant you don't even know that both countries have had ALOT of immigration from ALOT of different groups over a long period?

[Biglose]

 

No, the prime example of like dozens and dozens of cultures living together in a multicultural state.

 

I mean, seriously dude, did you really think ignoring the history of the US or Canada was gonna fly or are you just so ignorant you don't even know that both countries have had ALOT of immigration from ALOT of different groups over a long period?

Sure, and how does the social security system of the US compare to Norway?
Thats the point of what he said. I mean the US is the forst example because income inequality is sky high. That was exactly the claim.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Can someone explain to me, or does anyone relaly believe, Syria will be a better place to live in once Assad is gone?

 

The role of women's rights/feminism in Assad's Syria was/is modest at best, but is still progressive by the standards of many Arab nations, and revolutionary by the standards of ISIS and Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda in syria) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Syria#Women_in_the_military

 

If Assad is overthrown and the "moderate/secular rebels" gain power, it can't be expected for them to create a democratic, pluralistic society, where the rights of women and minorities are protected. Even if the new "moderate" government wished it so, they likely wouldn't have the resources/capability to prevent a genocide against Christians and Syrian Shias.

 

It is truly as if Obummer and Hillary have learned nothing since the ill-conceived Iraq invasion.

[Shryke]

Sure, and how does the social security system of the US compare to Norway?
Thats the point of what he said. I mean the US is the forst example because income inequality is sky high. That was exactly the claim.

 

How does the US's social safety net compare to Canada's?

 

Your point is doesn't make any sense because the one thing (the social safety net) does not correlate with the other (ethnic homogeneity).

[Shryke]

Can someone explain to me, or does anyone relaly believe, Syria will be a better place to live in once Assad is gone?

 

The role of women's rights/feminism in Assad's Syria was/is modest at best, but is still progressive by the standards of many Arab nations, and revolutionary by the standards of ISIS and Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda in syria) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Syria#Women_in_the_military

 

If Assad is overthrown and the "moderate/secular rebels" gain power, it can't be expected for them to create a democratic, pluralistic society, where the rights of women and minorities are protected. Even if the new "moderate" government wished it so, they likely wouldn't have the resources/capability to prevent a genocide against Christians and Syrian Shias.

 

It is truly as if Obummer and Hillary have learned nothing since the ill-conceived Iraq invasion.

 

Well, Assad was a brutal horrible dictator and it's not like any of the people you are talking about went out of their way to topple his regime. It's just that once Assad was unable to stop the rebellion(s) in Syria, the whole thing went to shit and people started looking at ways to restabilize the situation and stop the killing. Like, say, setting up a government not run by a brutal dictator that isn't even a US ally.

 

This is also, you'll note, completely distinct from Bush's stupidity in Iraq where he just decided on a whim to start destabilize the entire region.

 

 

Though at this point the whole thing is pretty much fucked and there's no available people, Assad, rebels or otherwise, who are capable of putting Syria back together again.

[Biglose]

 

Well, Assad was a brutal horrible dictator and it's not like any of the people you are talking about went out of their way to topple his regime. It's just that once Assad was unable to stop the rebellion(s) in Syria, the whole thing went to shit and people started looking at ways to restabilize the situation and stop the killing. Like, say, setting up a government not run by a brutal dictator that isn't even a US ally.

 

This is also, you'll note, completely distinct from Bush's stupidity in Iraq where he just decided on a whim to start destabilize the entire region.

 

 

Though at this point the whole thing is pretty much fucked and there's no available people, Assad, rebels or otherwise, who are capable of putting Syria back together again.

 

It is the exact same stupidity of Bush. Actually it is even worse than the stupidity of Bush. At least he had kind of a plan for what to do afterwards...

 

 

 

 

How does the US's social safety net compare to Canada's?

 

Your point is doesn't make any sense because the one thing (the social safety net) does not correlate with the other (ethnic homogeneity).

 

But it statistically speaking does. Nordic countries were very homogenus and have a high social security net. Countries which where less homogenus do not have such nets (to that extend).

And in sweden a lot of people are now talking about the end of that net. (And whats about canada? If you compare Canadas ethnic homogeneity to the one of the US the picture is clear. And again Canada has better social security...)

But I already see it. Facts which do not fit your narrative are not allowed to exist. Yeah. Got it. Hell, one has only to take a look at africa and how much suffering came from borders drawn with a ruler without regarding the tribal territories. And the dishonesty alone to say that a developed country after it more or less eradicated the indiginous population is able to integrate its slaves and take in some immigrants (while still having one of the lowest population densities of the world) Sure the whole civil rights thing was accompanied by the KKK and they were only hold in check by an extreamly strong central government... Which so many developing nation have (I guess it is about none).

[Enguerrand]

  Uh, North America dude?
    

If the issue is a lack of nationalistic identification, the solution is not a more ethnically homogeneous nation, it's building the idea of a nation. 

No, the prime example of like dozens and dozens of cultures living together in a multicultural state.

 

And how are that working out? Contrary to popular belief (and propaganda) the nation of USA, embracing multiculturalism is a very recent development. It took great pains to limit the influx of colored people and ethnically cleanse the country from them during most of it's history. In the 1960 census 90% percent of the population was identified Caucasian and there were very sharp demarcations between white and non-white neighborhoods. It's interesting to see the effect of the Civil rights movement on the society. For starters it pretty much killed the left of the country. Social welfare programs of administrations like Taft and Roosevelt is positively alien to the country today. The interests of the white underclass can and is played against the colored minorities. The homogeneous states of Northern Europe have a lenient justice system, paid vacations, strong unions, free health care, free college education, maternity leave, public child care etc yet despite the US tremendous wealth these things barely exist as concepts. In my belief due to the ethnic religious and cultural differences. Why should you pay these stuff for "them"? In an ethnically and cultural homogenous nation that answer is obvious, because they are your own people. In melting pots nations this identification doesn't exists hence there is little political support for compulsive solidarity. The constant wars without credible threats, the gun violence, police brutality, the support for the dehumanizing policies of the republican party are also effects of this IMO.

Many pundits want to believe that the USA will mix into some kind of uniform race neutral browness but this is highly unlikely. Latin American countries have had centuries for this to occur but the patterns are largely the same: a small European upper class and below it large segregated masses of Mestizos, Mulattoes and Amerindians, which is characterised by constant tension and mutual hostility.
When government control breaks apart like the riots in Los Angeles and New Orleans, americans quickly forget their national identity and quickly regress into the natural ethnic cultural religious divides.

There are many examples of prosperous and successful multi-ethnic empires throughout history. The defining feature of course is a dominant ethnic group wielding overwhelming military power able to crush all dissent if needed, and when ethnic and cultural minorities becomes so strong as to be able to resist the ruling culture by force, the empire breaks apart. Also multethnic empires like Rome and Habsburg pursued a policy of ethnopluralism — different groups were kept discrete; there were no governmental policies of forced assimilation, forced integration,  no “busing programs”.  Different ethnic groups were left alone and lived largely isolated from other groups. the rulers let them be as long as they paid their taxes and the people remained loyal as long as the state could protect them from threats and enforce law and order. While the Celts of Gaul eventually adopted Latin, most of the people of the East kept their indigenous languages and customs and Hellenized Greek remained the dominate language and culture of the East. In fact the mass immigration of people from the provinces to Italy largely coincided with the fall of Rome.

[SuperSaiyanSwagger]

Can someone explain to me, or does anyone relaly believe, Syria will be a better place to live in once Assad is gone?

 

The role of women's rights/feminism in Assad's Syria was/is modest at best, but is still progressive by the standards of many Arab nations, and revolutionary by the standards of ISIS and Al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda in syria) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Syria#Women_in_the_military

 

If Assad is overthrown and the "moderate/secular rebels" gain power, it can't be expected for them to create a democratic, pluralistic society, where the rights of women and minorities are protected. Even if the new "moderate" government wished it so, they likely wouldn't have the resources/capability to prevent a genocide against Christians and Syrian Shias.

 

It is truly as if Obummer and Hillary have learned nothing since the ill-conceived Iraq invasion.

Assad is obviously an evil man, but the uprising has just bought more death and destruction than good.

[The Fallen]

Is there a possibility that Assad has been humbled enough, and his adversaries battered enough, that he would grant some semi-autonomy to the disgruntled areas and everyone lives happily for the time being?

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Is there a possibility that Assad has been humbled enough, and his adversaries battered enough, that he would grant some semi-autonomy to the disgruntled areas and everyone lives happily for the time being?

 

Possibly actually. But I can't see ISIS accepting such a truce since they really are much more powerful with plenty of new recruits. Funnily enough they regard the Syrian Shias as worse, or more heretical than the Christians. As awful as Assad may well be, he seems the only thing that is stopping all of Syria from becoming a giant terrorist training camp, (what Libya essentially is now.) We can only hope the Russian soldiers succeed in keeping Assad afloat.

 

I often wonder, and hope someone can answer this: What would be the dangers/risks (if any) if the Iraq war never happened and an 79 year old Saddam Hussein were still in power? There would be some advantages sure, but imo, some disadvantages as well. As much as I think the Iraq was a mistake, I find it hard to really mourn Saddam's passing.

 

The Iran deal that Obama is hailing as "historic" would likely never have happened. As long as Saddam were in power in Iraq, I doubt very much the Ayatollahs would come to the negotiating table. Whether it would be good or bad, there would definitly be an Iraq/Iran nuclear arms race right now.

 

I tend to think Saddam. would have eventually gotten his WMD back. I think one of the main reasons they were unable to find any was because Iraq's economy and military capacity was so shattered/destroyed by the first gulf war, and the high restrictive UN Sanctions that were in place up until the 2003 invasion. Those sanctions were starting to break down right before the second war and likely woudl have been gone in a few years.

 

While he was less powerful than the Iranians are now, he seems to have had  much worse track record, and his regime was slightly more hideous. Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think Iran has started wars with two different countries, attempted to commit genocide their Kurdish minority (with the use of mustard/nerve gas), attempted to assasinate a US president, or had an extensive bio-weapons program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program

 

Compared to Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs seem almost... civic minded? I think they have their people's wellfare in mind, even if their "wellfare" means having them live by fundamentalist Islamic law.

 

Idk. I just get the sense that Saddam eventually might have become a problem or threat if he hadn't been taken care of when he did. I just think.. given his track record... it was unlikely he'd have spent the past 12 years or so doing nothing heinous. But I could be wrong.

 

Can anyone answer my question, or comment on my anaylsis?

[Shryke]

It is the exact same stupidity of Bush. Actually it is even worse than the stupidity of Bush. At least he had kind of a plan for what to do afterwards...

 

No he didn't. That's what Iraq looks like it does now.

 

Nor is it the same because, again, Obama didn't start no clusterfuck.

 

 

But it statistically speaking does. Nordic countries were very homogenus and have a high social security net. Countries which where less homogenus do not have such nets (to that extend).

And in sweden a lot of people are now talking about the end of that net. (And whats about canada? If you compare Canadas ethnic homogeneity to the one of the US the picture is clear. And again Canada has better social security...)

But I already see it. Facts which do not fit your narrative are not allowed to exist. Yeah. Got it. Hell, one has only to take a look at africa and how much suffering came from borders drawn with a ruler without regarding the tribal territories. And the dishonesty alone to say that a developed country after it more or less eradicated the indiginous population is able to integrate its slaves and take in some immigrants (while still having one of the lowest population densities of the world) Sure the whole civil rights thing was accompanied by the KKK and they were only hold in check by an extreamly strong central government... Which so many developing nation have (I guess it is about none).

 

 

 

It's rich hearing you complain about the facts being ignored while you continue to plug your ears and pretend like Canada is an ethnically homogeneous country.

 

Face it dude, your whole thesis is not supported by anything but your own desire for less race mixing.

[Shryke]

 And how are that working out? Contrary to popular belief (and propaganda) the nation of USA, embracing multiculturalism is a very recent development. It took great pains to limit the influx of colored people and ethnically cleanse the country from them during most of it's history. In the 1960 census 90% percent of the population was identified Caucasian and there were very sharp demarcations between white and non-white neighborhoods. It's interesting to see the effect of the Civil rights movement on the society. For starters it pretty much killed the left of the country. Social welfare programs of administrations like Taft and Roosevelt is positively alien to the country today. The interests of the white underclass can and is played against the colored minorities. The homogeneous states of Northern Europe have a lenient justice system, paid vacations, strong unions, free health care, free college education, maternity leave, public child care etc yet despite the US tremendous wealth these things barely exist as concepts. In my belief due to the ethnic religious and cultural differences. Why should you pay these stuff for "them"? In an ethnically and cultural homogenous nation that answer is obvious, because they are your own people. In melting pots nations this identification doesn't exists hence there is little political support for compulsive solidarity. The constant wars without credible threats, the gun violence, police brutality, the support for the dehumanizing policies of the republican party are also effects of this IMO.

Many pundits want to believe that the USA will mix into some kind of uniform race neutral browness but this is highly unlikely. Latin American countries have had centuries for this to occur but the patterns are largely the same: a small European upper class and below it large segregated masses of Mestizos, Mulattoes and Amerindians, which is characterised by constant tension and mutual hostility.
When government control breaks apart like the riots in Los Angeles and New Orleans, americans quickly forget their national identity and quickly regress into the natural ethnic cultural religious divides.

There are many examples of prosperous and successful multi-ethnic empires throughout history. The defining feature of course is a dominant ethnic group wielding overwhelming military power able to crush all dissent if needed, and when ethnic and cultural minorities becomes so strong as to be able to resist the ruling culture by force, the empire breaks apart. Also multethnic empires like Rome and Habsburg pursued a policy of ethnopluralism — different groups were kept discrete; there were no governmental policies of forced assimilation, forced integration,  no “busing programs”.  Different ethnic groups were left alone and lived largely isolated from other groups. the rulers let them be as long as they paid their taxes and the people remained loyal as long as the state could protect them from threats and enforce law and order. While the Celts of Gaul eventually adopted Latin, most of the people of the East kept their indigenous languages and customs and Hellenized Greek remained the dominate language and culture of the East. In fact the mass immigration of people from the provinces to Italy largely coincided with the fall of Rome.

 

Very well.

 

But no dude, please, we all want to hear more about how much you hate the mixing of the pure races.

[The Fallen]

People will always find someone to hate. Look at the Koreas. And what China does to some of it's citizens. Cambodia anyone? And of course Europeans murdered each other for a millennium.

[Enguerrand]

 

Very well.

 

But no dude, please, we all want to hear more about how much you hate the mixing of the pure races.

 

Classy and compelling retort, Old chap.

[Seaworth'sShipmate]

Can someone tell me why ISIS hates the Kurds so much?

 

Like ISIS, Iraqi Kurdistan is mostly made up of Sunni Muslims.

 

As terrible as it is, I believe Islamic extremism offically condemns racial and ethnic chauvanism. In radical Islam's eyes, Africans, Arabs and Kurds are all equal, so long as they follow their extremist version of Islam.

 

So if that is the case, why is there a conflict? Is it because Kurdistan is fairly progressive compared to many Arab countries?