Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on August 25, 2014, 12:29:07 am
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sas-special-forces-forming-hunter-4097083
-
Not sure if mirror is entirely trustworthy.
Weird development that IS is making NATO, Iran, and the PKK unite against common enemy.
-
Just let Iran kick their ass.
-
This is the only sensible strategy against IS as it exists right now. Train and equip the Kurds, send in special forces and back then both up with punishing air power. The Islamic State is about to learn the same lesson that the Taliban did in 2001 - when you are a state, with a conventional army and territory to defend, then professional, well equipped western militaries will utterly destroy you. All that technology and firepower that was relegated to uselessness against an insurgency is really, really good when deployed against an enemy nation, and the West had learned is lesson (for now) about the kind of massive ground invasions that asymmetric tactics work well against. IS are going to bleed dry very quickly, I suspect. Won't do much to stabilize Iraq, but it will stop this particular splinter from doing to much damage in the long term.
-
Not sure if mirror is entirely trustworthy.
Weird development that IS is making NATO, Iran, and the PKK unite against common enemy.
you forgot Asad.
-
Problem is the inevitable march towards stuff like this :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28923689
To sum it up, Boris Johnson believes that we should adopt a stance of 'Guilty until proven innocent' for any British person currently in Iraq or Syria.
I wonder, does this also apply to reporters, aid-workers etc?
-
This is overreacting, those people certainly need to be monitored. Those who go there are either terrorists or targets, close surveillance would help weed out the former and protect the latter.
And of course, anyone who allies themselves with the IS should lose their citizenship and/or be arrested the moment they try to leave. There can be no quarter for those Wahhabi nuts. Islamic State needs to be crushed before it spreads. You know it's bad when Iran is willing to work with NATO against them.
-
This is the only sensible strategy against IS as it exists right now. Train and equip the Kurds, send in special forces and back then both up with punishing air power. The Islamic State is about to learn the same lesson that the Taliban did in 2001 - when you are a state, with a conventional army and territory to defend, then professional, well equipped western militaries will utterly destroy you. All that technology and firepower that was relegated to uselessness against an insurgency is really, really good when deployed against an enemy nation, and the West had learned is lesson (for now) about the kind of massive ground invasions that asymmetric tactics work well against. IS are going to bleed dry very quickly, I suspect. Won't do much to stabilize Iraq, but it will stop this particular splinter from doing to much damage in the long term.
Took the words right out of my head. And unlike certain other situations where Western nations have trained and equipped forces in the Middle East, doing so with the Kurds is unlikely to backfire. They're wanted their own country for ages anyway, and don't seem to particularly care about foreign nations.
-
...
just wanted to point out that Briton is not alone (http://www.thelocal.no/20140825/norway-to-revoke-citizenship-of-terror-warriors-fighting-abroad)
-
This is weird, though. Why people from rich, modern countries would ally themselves with such scum? Even children of Muslims coming from those areas should know better than to help mass murderers. No matter how literally you take Koran (which Wahhabists are rather bad about), there's nothing there that could justify what happens in Islamic State. One would think that Muslims from Britain in Norway are educated enough to figure that out...
-
doesn't surprise me at all. It's gods will after all. If there were a literal crusade going on somewhere in the world I can totally see a **** tone of rich fat self-righteous Americans going off to fight for god.
-
I'm sure to them it's like the Spanish Civil War was to us.
-
/*spends five minutes researching it*/
yeah, except more personal/cultural, and less national.
-
I'd say that the Spanish civil war was still very personal and cultural, as it's basically a "clash of ideologies". Although it did later have implications on a worldwide scale (for example, a decent amount of people supported hitler because they thought he was an "the end justify the means" solution to the communists - in part due to the atrocities committed by the communists during the spanish civil war, such as slaughtering a whole lot of christians).
-
That whole situation reminds me of Afghanistan in 80's. Mujahedins which were used as a helpful tool to beat the Soviets broke the leash and started to act on their own. The same thing is happening today. Terrorists once used to overthrow al- Assad's government considered that they are strong enough to spread their sick ideas without consequences.
Personally I'm glad that US didn't manage to attack the Assad, because it's possible that IS would rule all across the country. So I wish the boys from Syrian Arab Army all the best and also the US pilots to drop all their payload accurately.
As for the terrorists from Europe fighting for ISIS. Such people should be banished and lose their citizenship automatically. And expelled if they somehow manage to return. We don't need bandits.
-
As for the terrorists from Europe fighting for ISIS. Such people should be banished and lose their citizenship automatically. And expelled if they somehow manage to return. We don't need bandits.
The Netherlands (and possibly other nations as well) already have laws in place that state that as soon as someone fights for a foreign power he automatically looses citizenship.
-
As for the terrorists from Europe fighting for ISIS. Such people should be banished and lose their citizenship automatically. And expelled if they somehow manage to return. We don't need bandits.
I wonder about the legal theory behind this. Is this loss of citizenship automatic? I. e. would a dutch person enlisting in the Foreign Legion automatically lose his citizenship? What about someone who commits a crime in a foreign country? Do they get their citizenships revoked too?
-
Assuming the Foreign Legion doesn't have any special legal status (IIRC, it's legally considered a mercenary unit permanently on French payroll, so it might be more like being hired in another country), then most likely yes. Countries in general don't like their citizens joining the armed forces of other countries. As for crimes, I think they're usually judged by the laws of the country they were committed in, though the precise procedure varies. IS case is somewhat special, in that they are not even recognized as a state, but are very much in control of a whole lot of the territory they claim.
Personally I'm glad that US didn't manage to attack the Assad, because it's possible that IS would rule all across the country. So I wish the boys from Syrian Arab Army all the best and also the US pilots to drop all their payload accurately.
Just to remind you, Assad is only a little bit better than ISIS, what with chemical weapon use and everything... Though Syrian rebels aren't fond of ISIS, either, so I don't think that even if Assad was removed, it'd make ISIS takeover any easier. ISIS aren't the only monsters in the area, they're merely the most heinous.
-
Assuming the Foreign Legion doesn't have any special legal status (IIRC, it's legally considered a mercenary unit permanently on French payroll, so it might be more like being hired in another country), then most likely yes. Countries in general don't like their citizens joining the armed forces of other countries. As for crimes, I think they're usually judged by the laws of the country they were committed in, though the precise procedure varies. IS case is somewhat special, in that they are not even recognized as a state, but are very much in control of a whole lot of the territory they claim.
The point I was trying to make is that joining a foreign military (provided said military lets you join) isn't a crime. It's not a violation of (in this case, Dutch) territorial integrity, it's not a crime against Dutch national or private interests per se, so what is the legal theory that allows the revocation of citizenship here, and why isn't that same theory used to revoke the citizenship of criminals with a dutch passport?
-
Dragon:
Yes, Assad possessed the chemical weapons but remember that is still not clear who launched the gas in Damascus last year. That's a different topic to discuss.
In the beginning of the conflict the rebels were really Syrians but in a short time the country was flooded by jihadist scum which came to Syria just tu murder, rape and plunder. In the meantime of course they destroyed the secular part of the opposition. What the media call "Syrian rebels" is almost no more Syrian. And I highly doubt that they fight to make the lives of the Syrians better. Imagine what could happen with Assad overthrown, army crushed and country totally disorganised with an ISIL on a doorstep. In my opinion Assad is the lesser evil. A necessary one. He will prevail or we will hear about more Christians and other non Muslim or not radical enough Muslim people slaughtered.
E:
Each country may have a different attitude towards mercenaries and people who serve in foreign armies. In Poland for example if you leave the country and join (without permission of the authorities) a different military or mercenary organisation and return to the country, you will go to jail (from 6 months to 8 years). if you commit a crime abroad you will be judged in the country where the crime took place. But sometimes there are examples when the criminals are being deported back to Poland to be sentenced. But there is a huge difference between committing a common crimes and fighting among well organised terrorists with litres of blood on their hands.
In case of ISIL, people who fought for it should be banished because of a simple thing. They are dangerous freaks (what kind of a sane person joins the jihadists?). In case of such people's return deportation is the best option in my opinion. Holding such people in prisons can be also harmful. They can spread their propaganda among other prisoners and create a potential threat in the future ("if we succeeded in Syria, why not do the same thing in Europe?")
-
In case of ISIL, people who fought for it should be banished because of a simple thing. They are dangerous freaks (what kind of a sane person joins the jihadists?). In case of such people's return deportation is the best option in my opinion. Holding such people in prisons can be also harmful. They can spread their propaganda among other prisoners and create a potential threat in the future ("if we succeeded in Syria, why not do the same thing in Europe?")
Be careful of such blanket statements. If they are "dangerous freaks", or insane, why do you allow people who are actually clinically and criminally insane citizenship? Why do you allow members of criminal organizations to retain their citizenship? Shouldn't they be stripped of it and be deported too?
See, these populist statements by Boris Johnson and other "hardline" politicians always sound so nice. If they want to be part of that so bad, we don't want them here! and all that. But if you spend a couple seconds to think through the implications of such a rule, it becomes immediately apparent that implementing them would lead to a whole mess of issues. Starting with having to answer the question why an act that isn't a crime in the country of origin of these people (Because joining an insurrection in another country directed at another country is not a crime in any jurisdiction on this planet) can result in criminal punishment, including the revocation of legal status as a citizen.
-
Be careful of such blanket statements. If they are "dangerous freaks", or insane, why do you allow people who are actually clinically and criminally insane citizenship? Why do you allow members of criminal organizations to retain their citizenship? Shouldn't they be stripped of it and be deported too?
Deported to where? Remember, the people you're talking about are, in most cases, citizens of the country they're causing trouble in. Islamic State does not threaten (at least, not yet) any European country directly, it's not a gang or a "normal" criminal organization. They're terrorists, different rules need to be applied to them. Oh, and they're not all insane, though they do have a fair share of dangerous freaks. Nobody who joins ISIS is worth any respect, but that's because of what they are known to be doing, what are their ideals and what they want to achieve. Also, there's little ambiguity on whether somebody joined them or not (especially for foreigners), so there's little doubt as to whether they deserve whatever's done to them.
In Poland, you can go to jail for joining a foreign military without Defense Minister's permission, at least in theory. Not that they enforce it, it most commonly happens with US armed forces, and our foreign politics are somewhat servile towards them (and of course, since US military service allows you to get US citizenship, most people don't bother with returning). Still, it is a crime to join foreign armed forces. I suppose it's because if you're a citizen of a country, you're supposed to work for interests of your country, and not some other one. That's the whole point of having a country in the first place, isn't it? Joining a foreign military is a direct violation of this "patriotic duty", even if the military is friendly. This makes sense, especially if you had, for example, a state-sponsored education. Simple work abroad is one thing (many corporations are multinational anyway), but in case of a military, you're clearly affiliating yourself with another state.
ISIS is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. They are trying to carve out a chunk of land for themselves, but they're nothing more than mass-murdering thugs. I think it is a crime (in pretty much every country) to be a member of a terrorist organization, and it's proper to remove one's citizenship, execute or put someone in jail for that. Do not think about ISIS as if it was a legitimate entity of any sort. They're thugs with a claim to land, no one recognizes them internationally and hopefully, nobody will. Neither should we. People fighting for ISIS are allying themselves with terrorists, and for that, they should be persecuted. With extreme prejudice. They are only making the world worse and need to be removed completely.
-
Seems simple enough to me. There's a big difference between joining a mercenary unit or another country's armed forces and joining a terrorist organisation. The distinction is terrorist. The other things are not in the equation.
-
Also, there's little ambiguity on whether somebody joined them or not (especially for foreigners)
How couldn't/wouldn't there be?
It seems pretty obvious that there would end up being plenty of ambiguous cases.
-
I've never quite understood the desire to revoke citizenship of people who commit heinous crimes, since I'd prefer they rot in a prison for the remainder of their lives after they attempt to return to their country of origin.
I understand the idea of revoking citizenship of people who obtain it fradulently, or who commit serious-but-not-life-imprisoning crimes, but for something of this nature, nope.
-
Deported to where? Remember, the people you're talking about are, in most cases, citizens of the country they're causing trouble in. Islamic State does not threaten (at least, not yet) any European country directly, it's not a gang or a "normal" criminal organization. They're terrorists, different rules need to be applied to them.
Short answer? No. No, different rules should very much not apply. The fact that jurisdictions all around the world have applied different standards to terrorists is a large part of why the past 13 years have been as insane as they were. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Terrorists are criminals, nothing less and nothing more. Legitimizing them by treating them as more dangerous or more worthy of official attention is, imho, NOT the right thing to do.
Still, it is a crime to join foreign armed forces. I suppose it's because if you're a citizen of a country, you're supposed to work for interests of your country, and not some other one.
That may have been the case in the early 20th century, but nationstates today neither command nor deserve the same amount of respect.
That's the whole point of having a country in the first place, isn't it?
No.
Joining a foreign military is a direct violation of this "patriotic duty", even if the military is friendly. This makes sense, especially if you had, for example, a state-sponsored education. Simple work abroad is one thing (many corporations are multinational anyway), but in case of a military, you're clearly affiliating yourself with another state.
Work abroad is more damaging to the economy of a state, and thus to its vital interests, than military service ever will be.
ISIS is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. They are trying to carve out a chunk of land for themselves, but they're nothing more than mass-murdering thugs. I think it is a crime (in pretty much every country) to be a member of a terrorist organization, and it's proper to remove one's citizenship, execute or put someone in jail for that.
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
And no. Membership in a terrorist organization does not invalidate your citizenship.
Do not think about ISIS as if it was a legitimate entity of any sort. They're thugs with a claim to land, no one recognizes them internationally and hopefully, nobody will. Neither should we. People fighting for ISIS are allying themselves with terrorists, and for that, they should be persecuted. With extreme prejudice. They are only making the world worse and need to be removed completely.
That is not how democracy works. That is not how criminal justice works. That, dear Dragon, is how witch hunts and inquisitions work.
-
Saying you want to be a terrorist is like saying you want to be a serial killer / mass murderer. Because that's what terrorists do, kill people to try and extort what they want. Which puts them above even serial killers as serial killers just want to kill. A group of terrorists are a group of serial killers / mass murderers or budding serial killers / mass murderers. Of course they should be taken more seriously.
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
You would be guilty of spreading hate speech for a start. And we are supposed to wait for you to actually start killing or convince someone to start killing before we do something about you? No. You have become a part of IS, and thus you are now the enemy and you should be dealt with at once.
-
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
You would be guilty of spreading hate speech for a start. And we are supposed to wait for you to actually start killing or convince someone to start killing before we do something about you? No. You have become a part of IS, and thus you are now the enemy and you should be dealt with at once.
No. Calling for the establishment of an islamic state is not hate speech. Calling for the regimes in the region to be overthrown in favour of an islamic government is not hate speech.
Learn how freedom of speech works, then we can continue to talk.
-
Terrorists don't necessarily have to kill to get what they want. What makes you a terrorist is the fact that you're instilling fear into your opposition creating general unrest to generally achieve a political goal. You don't have to kill to be a good terrorist (but it does help).
Take Environmental terrorists for example Lorric
-
That may have been the case in the early 20th century, but nationstates today neither command nor deserve the same amount of respect.
Joining a foreign military is a direct violation of this "patriotic duty", even if the military is friendly. This makes sense, especially if you had, for example, a state-sponsored education. Simple work abroad is one thing (many corporations are multinational anyway), but in case of a military, you're clearly affiliating yourself with another state.
Work abroad is more damaging to the economy of a state, and thus to its vital interests, than military service ever will be.
Yes, but remember the way governments think about those things changes slowly. You asked about legal theory, here it is. I don't agree with it. It's been the case in early 20th century, but today, we live in a different world. Governments are somewhat stuck to "old-timey" patriotism, but it's only a hindrance now. I mentioned the "point of having a country" and national loyalty, national interest. In the modern 1st world, those concepts are all a bit outdated. Indeed, I think that the whole idea of rigidly defined countries is also outdated. Corporations care little about borders, as the EU shows, many borders serve little purpose these days. We're not quite ready to get rid of them yet, but the entire concept of a country is becoming less and less relevant in the west.
Deported to where? Remember, the people you're talking about are, in most cases, citizens of the country they're causing trouble in. Islamic State does not threaten (at least, not yet) any European country directly, it's not a gang or a "normal" criminal organization. They're terrorists, different rules need to be applied to them.
Short answer? No. No, different rules should very much not apply. The fact that jurisdictions all around the world have applied different standards to terrorists is a large part of why the past 13 years have been as insane as they were. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Terrorists are criminals, nothing less and nothing more. Legitimizing them by treating them as more dangerous or more worthy of official attention is, imho, NOT the right thing to do.
Terrorists should be categorized with pirates. Hostis humani generi. They cannot be fought with normal means, if you apply normal rules to them, you'll find yourself overwhelmed. I'm not arguing legitimizing them, quite the contrary. It's just that your usual criminals are generally confined to a single jurisdiction and incapable of fielding such manpower as terrorist groups. There are other organizations (such as drug cartels) that also need special, often military, response. This is what I mean. We do need different rules for dealing with such large scale, well equipped organizations. The problem was that jurisdictions around the world didn't apply the right special rules. IS is too big to just arrest and persecute it's members for murder. It's too strong and fanatical to use nonlethal tactics against them. Criminals also still have rights, some of which we can't afford to give to IS members.
ISIS is an internationally recognized terrorist organization. They are trying to carve out a chunk of land for themselves, but they're nothing more than mass-murdering thugs. I think it is a crime (in pretty much every country) to be a member of a terrorist organization, and it's proper to remove one's citizenship, execute or put someone in jail for that.
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
And no. Membership in a terrorist organization does not invalidate your citizenship.
Remember, by actually joining them, you're agreeing with them. You should check what it actually entails to be a member of their organization. Supporting them, or cheering to them is protected speech. But actually joining them is to declare yourself willing to participate in their atrocities. They not only advocate ethnic and religious cleansing, but they actually do that. Declaration of membership, one that is actually recognized by ISIS, goes way beyond speech. They can compel you to act and you'd have to obey or die. You know it before you join. It's pretty unambiguous for me. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.
Do not think about ISIS as if it was a legitimate entity of any sort. They're thugs with a claim to land, no one recognizes them internationally and hopefully, nobody will. Neither should we. People fighting for ISIS are allying themselves with terrorists, and for that, they should be persecuted. With extreme prejudice. They are only making the world worse and need to be removed completely.
That is not how democracy works. That is not how criminal justice works. That, dear Dragon, is how witch hunts and inquisitions work.
Yes. Maybe, just maybe, we need an inquisition this time. Did you see what democracies did in the Middle East? Iraq? Corrupt, unstable and, once it stopped being propped up by the US, spiraled right back to pre-war state. Palestine? Elected actual, known terrorists. Israel? It's an European country in all but location. Iran? Bigoted, warmongering and dangerous. I've been watching this region for quite some time, and it appears that the only countries that have any sort of stability are monarchical or dictatorial. Only the former have anything resembling freedom, though they're all very lacking in that regard. Coincidence? Or perhaps an indication that Middle East isn't ready for democracy. We've been playing "by the rules" for 13 or so years. We've been trying to convince them "our way" of doing things is morally superior. It's not like we're not morally superior, but it doesn't work. People still keep killing each other in there. If we want to win this, we either play by their "rules", or leave them to rot in their bigotry and death. Anything else will only lead to pointless deaths. US military interventions in the Middle East hardly helped anyone, hardly made things better. They didn't eliminate corruption, religious extremism and bigotry. I'm not sure if it's even possible for middle east to become civilized anytime soon. Attempts to be civilized have, so far, all failed.
I'm becoming more and more disillusioned by the situation in there. Perhaps it can't be helped at all. There are places like Libya where civilization seems to be working out, slowly, but even there, the democracy is young and somewhat flimsy. Perhaps the whole region should be just left alone.
-
No. If I were to declare myself as a member of IS, and if I were to act publically as an advocate of IS, I would not be guilty of anything. If I was arrested because of it, I would be well within my rights to demand restitution from the state for infringing on my freedoms.
You would be guilty of spreading hate speech for a start. And we are supposed to wait for you to actually start killing or convince someone to start killing before we do something about you? No. You have become a part of IS, and thus you are now the enemy and you should be dealt with at once.
No. Calling for the establishment of an islamic state is not hate speech. Calling for the regimes in the region to be overthrown in favour of an islamic government is not hate speech.
Learn how freedom of speech works, then we can continue to talk.
No, you said you were outright saying you were a member of IS. If you were simply arguing in favour of the ideology of IS, not supporting the killing, or perhaps wanting to live under IS, then I would agree with not touching you.
-
We'll never convince anyone to fight for democracy if our democracies abandon their supposed core values at the first sight of a scary terror man. That makes democracy look really crappy and terrorists look like the thing to be.
-
Let's start a coup swash. It's all the rage these days
And we are supposed to wait for you to actually start killing or convince someone to start killing before we do something about you?
That sentence reminds me a lot of Rwanda
-
We've been playing "by the rules" for 13 or so years. We've been trying to convince them "our way" of doing things is morally superior. It's not like we're not morally superior, but it doesn't work. People still keep killing each other in there. If we want to win this, we either play by their "rules", or leave them to rot in their bigotry and death.
How short the public memory is. Modern terrorism has existed since at least the second decade of the 1900s, and Western democracies have been quite effective at fighting them throughout. This game has been played for much longer than 13 years.
There are two ways of dealing with actual terrorism:
1. Kill them as necessary in the course of stopping an actual terrorist act, OR, if possible
2. Arrest them, try them, and punish them according to the rule of law
This removes their legitimacy. It treats them not as a political movement, but as a criminal organization, which they are. It ensures that their failed ideology and tactics are exposed for all to see, and shows that everyone who opposes them is willing to live by the rule of law. The moment we abandon our principles and implement special treatment of terrorist acts is the moment you elevate terrorism above other forms of violent crime, and give it some legitimacy.
So no, you don't get to arbitrarily suspend the rights of those accused of terrorism. Instead, you treat them with all the deference that the rule of law requires, and then you slam the door and throw away the key and leave them to rot in obscurity when convicted legitimately. This is part of the reason that Guantanamo Bay worked so poorly and was such a lightning rod for controversy and ran contrary to the rule of law that the West supposedly espouses.
The last 13 years is nothing new. It's just slightly different. Instead of dealing with ideologically-driven insurgencies in southeast Asia, South America, Africa, or southeastern Europe, we're dealing with ideologically-driven insurgencies in the Middle East. Same ****, different meal that led to it, and different toilet that it's taking place in.
-
No, you said you were outright saying you were a member of IS. If you were simply arguing in favour of the ideology of IS, not supporting the killing, or perhaps wanting to live under IS, then I would agree with not touching you.
There's a difference though: Even if I am a member of said organization, what crimes have I committed that I can actually be tried and convicted for? The crime of not being particularly savvy in choosing the causes I support? The crime of having unpopular opinions?
Terrorist acts in a different country are not crimes in mine. That's the whole point I'm making here; if I go to the US, commit a terrorist act, and go back here, I cannot be punished by the german state directly. Whatever punishment is in store has to be decided upon by a court in the US. German authorities can be asked to help apprehend me, but they can't prosecute me directly and out of their own accord, because I did not commit any crimes in Germany.
If you say that a british national who has become part of IS and has committed crimes as part of IS, then that's not a felony under UK law. He did not commit crimes in the UK, or against british citizens, therefore UK authorities do not have jurisdiction. Iraqi authorities might, and they might ask the UK to extradite such a notional person, and the UK may agree to do so, but at no point does the UK have the right to strip that person of his citizenship.
Understand this, as despiccable as these individuals might be, there are lines that a sane democracy mustn't cross in its pursuit of making its constituents happy.
-
Assuming the Foreign Legion doesn't have any special legal status (IIRC, it's legally considered a mercenary unit permanently on French payroll, so it might be more like being hired in another country), then most likely yes. Countries in general don't like their citizens joining the armed forces of other countries. As for crimes, I think they're usually judged by the laws of the country they were committed in, though the precise procedure varies. IS case is somewhat special, in that they are not even recognized as a state, but are very much in control of a whole lot of the territory they claim.
The point I was trying to make is that joining a foreign military (provided said military lets you join) isn't a crime. It's not a violation of (in this case, Dutch) territorial integrity, it's not a crime against Dutch national or private interests per se, so what is the legal theory that allows the revocation of citizenship here, and why isn't that same theory used to revoke the citizenship of criminals with a dutch passport?
Looked it up and it seems that the law was ammended: You only lose your nationality if that nation takes hostile action against The Netherlands (This prevents dutch-isrealians or dutch-turks to resign their citizenship if they are conscripted for those respective foreign nations).
I think the main point is that if a criminal is arrested in say, peru, the dutch nation is still somewhat responsible for looking out for him, as he or she is still a dutch citizen. The revoking of citizenship is a heavy handed method of disavowing all responsibility.
-
No, you said you were outright saying you were a member of IS. If you were simply arguing in favour of the ideology of IS, not supporting the killing, or perhaps wanting to live under IS, then I would agree with not touching you.
There's a difference though: Even if I am a member of said organization, what crimes have I committed that I can actually be tried and convicted for? The crime of not being particularly savvy in choosing the causes I support? The crime of having unpopular opinions?
Terrorist acts in a different country are not crimes in mine. That's the whole point I'm making here; if I go to the US, commit a terrorist act, and go back here, I cannot be punished by the german state directly. Whatever punishment is in store has to be decided upon by a court in the US. German authorities can be asked to help apprehend me, but they can't prosecute me directly and out of their own accord, because I did not commit any crimes in Germany.
If you say that a british national who has become part of IS and has committed crimes as part of IS, then that's not a felony under UK law. He did not commit crimes in the UK, or against british citizens, therefore UK authorities do not have jurisdiction. Iraqi authorities might, and they might ask the UK to extradite such a notional person, and the UK may agree to do so, but at no point does the UK have the right to strip that person of his citizenship.
Understand this, as despiccable as these individuals might be, there are lines that a sane democracy mustn't cross in its pursuit of making its constituents happy.
If you're avoiding anything like hate speech, inciting violence, recruiting terrorists, or stating you were a terrorist, then you basically make sense. I guess the only thing is the different view of terrorists, as I see them as enemy combatants. If you were up there saying you were a terrorist, think of how it would be if you were up there saying you were a soldier of a country the country you were in was at war with. In that case you would be seized as a POW.
I don't really understand this idea that it legitimises them and this is bad. Higher threats need higher responses. When a particularly despicable crime is committed here in the UK, a nationwide manhunt goes into action. When there's a gun involved, armed police go into action. When you join a terrorist organisation you are a terrorist. You intend to commit the acts, and we shouldn't have to wait for you to carry out that intent before we can touch you.
-
Terrorists should be categorized with pirates. Hostis humani generi. They cannot be fought with normal means, if you apply normal rules to them, you'll find yourself overwhelmed.
Really? Why is that? What makes a terrorist organization any different from organized crime?
I'm not arguing legitimizing them, quite the contrary. It's just that your usual criminals are generally confined to a single jurisdiction and incapable of fielding such manpower as terrorist groups.
The Italians would like a word with you. I hear they're always interested in better ways to deal with the Mafia problem.
There are other organizations (such as drug cartels) that also need special, often military, response. This is what I mean. We do need different rules for dealing with such large scale, well equipped organizations.
No, we really do not. We do not need rules that bypass due process. We do not need rules allowing the use of torture. We do not need to put expediency before justice.
The problem was that jurisdictions around the world didn't apply the right special rules. IS is too big to just arrest and persecute it's members for murder. It's too strong and fanatical to use nonlethal tactics against them. Criminals also still have rights, some of which we can't afford to give to IS members.
How often do I have to repeat this? IS members outside of the areas in which IS is committing crimes aren't criminals unless they commit crimes there. Do you not understand this simple fact? A polish man caught speeding in France will not be prosecuted by polish authorities. A german caught committing murder in Britain will not be prosecuted by german authorities. You cannot strip someone of citizenship for crimes committed in another country.
Remember, by actually joining them, you're agreeing with them. You should check what it actually entails to be a member of their organization. Supporting them, or cheering to them is protected speech. But actually joining them is to declare yourself willing to participate in their atrocities. They not only advocate ethnic and religious cleansing, but they actually do that. Declaration of membership, one that is actually recognized by ISIS, goes way beyond speech. They can compel you to act and you'd have to obey or die. You know it before you join. It's pretty unambiguous for me. "Just following orders" is not an excuse.
And if I start murdering people in the streets, I would expect to be persecuted with the full force of the law. But I would not expect to be deported, or stripped of my citizenship, that's just not the done thing. Again, crimes committed in another jurisdiction are null and void until such time as a representative of said jurisdiction asks my country for help in prosecuting me. Then they can take action, but at no point is my citizenship in jeopardy. And it shouldn't be either.
Yes. Maybe, just maybe, we need an inquisition this time. Did you see what democracies did in the Middle East? Iraq? Corrupt, unstable and, once it stopped being propped up by the US, spiraled right back to pre-war state. Palestine? Elected actual, known terrorists. Israel? It's an European country in all but location. Iran? Bigoted, warmongering and dangerous. I've been watching this region for quite some time, and it appears that the only countries that have any sort of stability are monarchical or dictatorial. Only the former have anything resembling freedom, though they're all very lacking in that regard. Coincidence? Or perhaps an indication that Middle East isn't ready for democracy. We've been playing "by the rules" for 13 or so years. We've been trying to convince them "our way" of doing things is morally superior. It's not like we're not morally superior, but it doesn't work. People still keep killing each other in there. If we want to win this, we either play by their "rules", or leave them to rot in their bigotry and death. Anything else will only lead to pointless deaths. US military interventions in the Middle East hardly helped anyone, hardly made things better. They didn't eliminate corruption, religious extremism and bigotry. I'm not sure if it's even possible for middle east to become civilized anytime soon. Attempts to be civilized have, so far, all failed.
I'm becoming more and more disillusioned by the situation in there. Perhaps it can't be helped at all. There are places like Libya where civilization seems to be working out, slowly, but even there, the democracy is young and somewhat flimsy. Perhaps the whole region should be just left alone.
Yeah, sure, let's fight inequality, poverty and human rights abuses by installing and supporting the kinds of regimes most likely to produce such in short order. Marvellous idea, that.
I don't really understand this idea that it legitimises them and this is bad. Higher threats need higher responses. When a particularly despicable crime is committed here in the UK, a nationwide manhunt goes into action. When there's a gun involved, armed police go into action. When you join a terrorist organisation you are a terrorist. You intend to commit the acts, and we shouldn't have to wait for you to carry out that intent before we can touch you.
It's rather simple. Terrorists believe that they have legitimate grievances that they can only solve through the use or threat of use of violence. They believe that by committing violent acts, they can effect a larger change in the society they inhabit; by treating them as "enemy combatants" instead of common criminals, their messages are indirectly legitimized. Heavy-handed police action against them only reinforces their message, which always has an undercurrent of "Our truth is being suppressed by the state! See, we do have a legit point here!"; this is an outcome that should be avoided. If they are prosecuted as criminals, as murderers, arsonists, vandals, thieves or whatever, if the proceedings against them are stripped of the political and are brought down to the levels of common criminals, you can cut off their basis of legitimization, while at the same time leaving open a possibility of dialogue. "Look," the state can say, "We see there are actual issues here, and we can discuss them, but we can do so in a sane and rational way."
-
I don't really understand this idea that it legitimises them and this is bad. Higher threats need higher responses. When a particularly despicable crime is committed here in the UK, a nationwide manhunt goes into action. When there's a gun involved, armed police go into action. When you join a terrorist organisation you are a terrorist. You intend to commit the acts, and we shouldn't have to wait for you to carry out that intent before we can touch you.
It's rather simple. Terrorists believe that they have legitimate grievances that they can only solve through the use or threat of use of violence. They believe that by committing violent acts, they can effect a larger change in the society they inhabit; by treating them as "enemy combatants" instead of common criminals, their messages are indirectly legitimized. Heavy-handed police action against them only reinforces their message, which always has an undercurrent of "Our truth is being suppressed by the state! See, we do have a legit point here!"; this is an outcome that should be avoided. If they are prosecuted as criminals, as murderers, arsonists, vandals, thieves or whatever, if the proceedings against them are stripped of the political and are brought down to the levels of common criminals, you can cut off their basis of legitimization, while at the same time leaving open a possibility of dialogue. "Look," the state can say, "We see there are actual issues here, and we can discuss them, but we can do so in a sane and rational way."
Is there any danger in that though? Danger enough to be more important than the increased danger to the public of lessening the strength of your response against terrorists. I just don't see it. The vast majority of the World knows that the terrorists have no legitimacy. And that simply by being terrorists in the first place that kills their legitimacy much more effectively than anything else. Surely anyone who wants to join the terrorists will not have the crucial factor in their decision being the terrorist organisation somehow getting legitimised by a strong response against it. I would think not having a strong response would be more likely to give incentive to people to become terrorists.
I don't think you should negotiate with terrorists. The door opens when they stop being terrorists. And what would there be to negotiate anyway? We simply cannot give in to any of their demands.
-
"Look," the state can say, "We see there are actual issues here, and we can discuss them, but we can do so in a sane and rational way."
That is of course The E, if these are sane and rational people we're dealing with
That and talks are only going to work if both sides are going to listen. While the State may give them a dialogue, what are the odds they'll actually pay any of it any attention? If they don't do anything, it'll make the opposition more inclined to be radical while if they did do something, it still carries the political undertone that violence will get you a dialogue which can set a precedence for how future "dialogues" will play out. Even if you take away their legitimization by treating them as common criminals, they won't see it that way. They'll be seen as not being taken seriously which brings them to doing more of the only thing they know. Violence
It's Catch 22
-
Is there any danger in that though? Danger enough to be more important than the increased danger to the public of lessening the strength of your response against terrorists. I just don't see it. The vast majority of the World knows that the terrorists have no legitimacy. And that simply by being terrorists in the first place that kills their legitimacy much more effectively than anything else. Surely anyone who wants to join the terrorists will not have the crucial factor in their decision being the terrorist organisation somehow getting legitimised by a strong response against it. I would think not having a strong response would be more likely to give incentive to people to become terrorists.
Is there danger in encompassing coverage of the latest celebrity suicides? Research strongly suggests there is, cases like Robin Williams' always come with a noticeable uptick in suicide rates.
Similar mechanisms apply with terrorist organizations. If the official narrative is "these are dangerous people following a dangerous ideology", then people will show more interest in that ideology, and the terrorists will find it easier to get support from other groups and individuals with grievances against the authorities.
If, on the other hand, the narrative is "Here's a group of criminals", then that's it as far as the vast majority of people is concerned. There will be a few looking into the background of those terrorists, and there may be even a few who will want to join up with them as a result, but given that what the terrorists want is for their message to be spread, should it not be our duty not to spread it?
That's the idea here, just as you do not go into detail about celebrity suicides (or suicides in general) in order to de-glamourize it and to discourage people from following in the footsteps of the person committing suicide, you should not go into detail about the motivations of terrorists.
If a terrorist can frame the narrative in the terms of "We're a legitimate resistance against the oppressive government!", they can gain legitimization in the eyes of the public that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise.
I don't think you should negotiate with terrorists. The door opens when they stop being terrorists. And what would there be to negotiate anyway? We simply cannot give in to any of their demands.
Yes. Never negotiate with terrorists. But do make an effort to remove the legitimization those terrorists use.
-
Somehow being stripped of citizenship seems to be a big deal, but then british citizenship is given out like candy.. I feel uneasy about anyone being stripped of citizenship but I frankly would not give a damn until this kind of asymmetry changes.
Question: it is easy to imagine what being stripped of citizenship means for those with dual citizenship, but what would it mean for someone who is only British (on paper)? Is is even possible to have no country? Do they cease to be human???
-
Is there any danger in that though? Danger enough to be more important than the increased danger to the public of lessening the strength of your response against terrorists. I just don't see it. The vast majority of the World knows that the terrorists have no legitimacy. And that simply by being terrorists in the first place that kills their legitimacy much more effectively than anything else. Surely anyone who wants to join the terrorists will not have the crucial factor in their decision being the terrorist organisation somehow getting legitimised by a strong response against it. I would think not having a strong response would be more likely to give incentive to people to become terrorists.
Is there danger in encompassing coverage of the latest celebrity suicides? Research strongly suggests there is, cases like Robin Williams' always come with a noticeable uptick in suicide rates.
Similar mechanisms apply with terrorist organizations. If the official narrative is "these are dangerous people following a dangerous ideology", then people will show more interest in that ideology, and the terrorists will find it easier to get support from other groups and individuals with grievances against the authorities.
If, on the other hand, the narrative is "Here's a group of criminals", then that's it as far as the vast majority of people is concerned. There will be a few looking into the background of those terrorists, and there may be even a few who will want to join up with them as a result, but given that what the terrorists want is for their message to be spread, should it not be our duty not to spread it?
That's the idea here, just as you do not go into detail about celebrity suicides (or suicides in general) in order to de-glamourize it and to discourage people from following in the footsteps of the person committing suicide, you should not go into detail about the motivations of terrorists.
If a terrorist can frame the narrative in the terms of "We're a legitimate resistance against the oppressive government!", they can gain legitimization in the eyes of the public that they wouldn't be able to get otherwise.
Well I don't mind as long as the strength of the response is not lessened.
However, I don't see how you could achieve this without compromising the freedom of the press. The same thing happens with "big" criminals, we end up finding out their motives and their life story and hearing from various people about what they thought of them...
And what about the celebrity suicides, people want to know about it, people want to produce tributes and revisit their work. Unfortunately, there will also be people who are already very low, and then they find out that their idol just ended their own life...
-
How often do I have to repeat this? IS members outside of the areas in which IS is committing crimes aren't criminals unless they commit crimes there. Do you not understand this simple fact? A polish man caught speeding in France will not be prosecuted by polish authorities. A german caught committing murder in Britain will not be prosecuted by german authorities. You cannot strip someone of citizenship for crimes committed in another country.
Whoa, hoss. Keep in mind that if IS is declared a terrorist organization in certain countries, mere membership in it and support of its personnel is a criminal act. I'm not sure if anyone has actually listed IS as a terrorist organization for those purposes yet, however.
Also, as a matter of international law, you can absolutely be prosecuted by your home country for crimes committed in another country (child sex tourism being an excellent example), and you can also strip their citizenship if local laws allow that as punishment in response to a particular crime, though it's fairly uncommon. More common are travel restrictions and refusal to issue / seizure of a passport. Regardless, it is absolutely possible to prosecute someone in their country of citizenship for crimes committed abroad, depending on the local laws.
As an aside to a more recent post, contagion theory of suicides is highly controversial and more recent studies don't seem to support it anywhere near as much.
-
So... some fuzzy stuff here with whether something is a legitimate state versus a terrorist organization.
What would IS have to do to qualify as a legitimate state? If a state's military uses terrorist tactics, do they cease to be a state?
Getting into more general & hypothetical terms...
Self determination says if someone want to be their own state, they should be able to, but there isn't a country in the world where you could actually get away with seceding from it, and take your land with you. It would be a criminal act in whatever country you're seceding from, by failure to pay property taxes, if nothing else. So what would be the correct way?
-
Think E is right but we're getting needlessly complex. How about just the fact that stripping someone of citizenship or witch hunts in general can be really easy to twist to new targets?
Generally, the law is supposed to give you presumption of innocence because the disparity of forces involved. It's you (and maybe a lawyer) vs the state. The state for most people is a 600 pound gorilla compared to them, to the point were historically many innocent people can have a hard time fighting back against false accusations.
Back to the main point. States start declaring IS members to be noncitizens, maybe even go as far to try them in non-standard court on return. You leave your country on vacation and come back to immediate arrest and claims you went to Syria instead of Australia. Citizenship suspended and probably in special holding with reduced rights, how do you rate your chances of fighting these charges?
-
I'm just here to say that at first I thought the post was about hitting Inner Sphere members.
-
Back to the main point. States start declaring IS members to be noncitizens, maybe even go as far to try them in non-standard court on return. You leave your country on vacation and come back to immediate arrest and claims you went to Syria instead of Australia. Citizenship suspended and probably in special holding with reduced rights, how do you rate your chances of fighting these charges?
Well, you'd have a stamp in your passport, won't you? If you went to Australia, you had to cross the border, get your passport stamped... There is a paper trail for those things. If you did indeed go to Syria... well, there's a good reason for a through investigation, at least, especially if you claimed you're going to Australia. Now, I don't know how hard is to get to Syria from it's saner neighbors, but something tells me that given the current situation, the border is going to be guarded.
Also, loss of citizenship would only ensue if you joined the IS, which is different than just being in Syria. Joining IS anywhere, identifying with them and submitting to their command, should be punished, and harshly.
Terrorists should be categorized with pirates. Hostis humani generi. They cannot be fought with normal means, if you apply normal rules to them, you'll find yourself overwhelmed.
Really? Why is that? What makes a terrorist organization any different from organized crime?
I'm not arguing legitimizing them, quite the contrary. It's just that your usual criminals are generally confined to a single jurisdiction and incapable of fielding such manpower as terrorist groups.
The Italians would like a word with you. I hear they're always interested in better ways to deal with the Mafia problem.
Of course, Mafia would also fall under the "terrorist" classification. Terrorists are different from organized crime by their equipment, reach and manpower they can field. Mafia methods are more subdued than those of terrorists, but they boil down to the same. Yes, the Italians are overwhelmed. I don't think they'd be ready to accept what it takes to uproot the Mafia, though. If they did, they could have gotten rid of them. Also, they don't have the comfort of having a foreign force do what needs to be done. Italy would need to use it's own military within it's own borders, impose martial law, and people won't like it. Which means no re-election for whoever tries that. So it's unlikely to happen, even if long-term effects would be good for everyone.
Also, Mafia operates much more stealthly, meaning that measures against it could get rather orwellian. I wouldn't trust any current Italian politician with doing something like this. This would need to be enacted, Mafia purged and then all the extreme measures and emergency laws quickly removed. All too often, governments get too fond of extra control and find it hard to give up. A person capable of responsibly purging a civilized country like Italy is bloody hard to find. In case of Iraq and Syria, it's really hard to make it much worse, IS is bolder and much more overt, but less "experienced" than Italian Mafia. This would make them much easier to hunt down.
There are other organizations (such as drug cartels) that also need special, often military, response. This is what I mean. We do need different rules for dealing with such large scale, well equipped organizations.
No, we really do not. We do not need rules that bypass due process. We do not need rules allowing the use of torture. We do not need to put expediency before justice.
At this point, "justice" to the terrorists is kind of moot point. The point is to protect everyone else from them. IS, as well as other terrorist organizations, are long past the point where they deserve any rights. What matter is protecting people from their actions. As such, I find it a fair game to apply somewhat different rules to them, ones oriented less towards justice and more towards neutralizing the threat. At any cost necessary. This would most likely actually cut down on the total bodycount.
Yeah, sure, let's fight inequality, poverty and human rights abuses by installing and supporting the kinds of regimes most likely to produce such in short order. Marvellous idea, that.
We can do that, or support regimes prone to producing, in short order, huge levels of corruption and/or turning into dictatorships anyway, in an uncontrolled and violent fashion. Democracy doesn't work in the Middle East, there are only two good, stable ones in the region. Israel and Yemen. The former is an anomaly, the latter is very far away from any flashpoints, separated from them by Saudi Arabia and a swatch of desert. Therefore, it might be better to have an intelligent dictator or even a legitimate king. See Kuwait, UAE, even Saudi Arabia. Saudi king is a bigoted old goat who's lived too long already, but even with that dolt at the helm, the country is at relative peace. Kuwait and UAE are downright nice by Middle Eastern standards, and Quatar is almost like a western country at times. Somehow, monarchy just seems to work in the region. Even the Iraq's first president was from the House of Yawer, which is (IIRC) the closest Iraq has to royalty. He did pretty good for a president, all things considered. This is what I call "experimental evidence". Perhaps if the US let him assume the title Shah or something, the country wouldn't have been a bloody mess it is now.
What we know is that Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (as of recently) and Lebanon all call themselves republics. They range from "problematic" (Turkey, Lebanon) to "war-torn" (Syria, Iraq). Somehow, neither Kuwait, nor UAE, nor Quatar have those issues in such magnitude. They have some serious gender equality issues, but if I had a choice of being a woman in Iraq "republic" and in Quatar, I'd go with the latter without any doubts. This might be the only chance, with a harsh, uncompromising leader stepping (or being installed by foreign forces) in order to purge, along with allied militaries, any terrorists within the borders. A strong king capable of uniting the country and throwing out/killing everyone who is a threat to his people. We might then (or later, when the country becomes socially advanced enough) talk about turning the place into a constitutional monarchy, or maybe even a fully fledged democracy. "Common" Middle Eastern people, as-is, are not fit to have so much power handed to them.
-
What we know is that Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt (as of recently) and Lebanon all call themselves republics. They range from "problematic" (Turkey, Lebanon) to "war-torn" (Syria, Iraq). Somehow, neither Kuwait, nor UAE, nor Quatar have those issues in such magnitude. They have some serious gender equality issues, but if I had a choice of being a woman in Iraq "republic" and in Quatar, I'd go with the latter without any doubts. This might be the only chance, with a harsh, uncompromising leader stepping (or being installed by foreign forces) in order to purge, along with allied militaries, any terrorists within the borders. A strong king capable of uniting the country and throwing out/killing everyone who is a threat to his people. We might then (or later, when the country becomes socially advanced enough) talk about turning the place into a constitutional monarchy, or maybe even a fully fledged democracy. "Common" Middle Eastern people, as-is, are not fit to have so much power handed to them.
Can you be racist elsewhere, please?
-
I see no racism.
-
I see no racism.
"Common" Middle Eastern people, as-is, are not fit to have so much power handed to them
This is racist bull****.
-
I see no racism.
"Common" Middle Eastern people, as-is, are not fit to have so much power handed to them
This is racist bull****.
So is it racist to say Americans are not fit to carry guns?
-
So is it racist to say Americans are not fit to carry guns?
Noone is fit to carry guns, not without a whole lot of training. There are objective facts that support that particular stance.
There are no such facts available that show that middle eastern or african people, as a collective, are unfit to handle the responsibility of living in a democracy.
-
"Middle-Eastern" is not a race; what has "African" to do with anything in this discussion?
-
I see no racism.
So do I.
-
I see no racism.
So do I.
Does that mean you agree with me?
As for Dragon, this is where he's coming from:
Yes. Maybe, just maybe, we need an inquisition this time. Did you see what democracies did in the Middle East? Iraq? Corrupt, unstable and, once it stopped being propped up by the US, spiraled right back to pre-war state. Palestine? Elected actual, known terrorists. Israel? It's an European country in all but location. Iran? Bigoted, warmongering and dangerous. I've been watching this region for quite some time, and it appears that the only countries that have any sort of stability are monarchical or dictatorial. Only the former have anything resembling freedom, though they're all very lacking in that regard. Coincidence? Or perhaps an indication that Middle East isn't ready for democracy. We've been playing "by the rules" for 13 or so years. We've been trying to convince them "our way" of doing things is morally superior. It's not like we're not morally superior, but it doesn't work. People still keep killing each other in there. If we want to win this, we either play by their "rules", or leave them to rot in their bigotry and death. Anything else will only lead to pointless deaths. US military interventions in the Middle East hardly helped anyone, hardly made things better. They didn't eliminate corruption, religious extremism and bigotry. I'm not sure if it's even possible for middle east to become civilized anytime soon. Attempts to be civilized have, so far, all failed.
I'm becoming more and more disillusioned by the situation in there. Perhaps it can't be helped at all. There are places like Libya where civilization seems to be working out, slowly, but even there, the democracy is young and somewhat flimsy. Perhaps the whole region should be just left alone.
Say what you want about that. I don't have a strong opinion. But I do however believe this is evidence that racism is not the root of Dragon's statement. But The E just blew it off with a flippant response:
Yeah, sure, let's fight inequality, poverty and human rights abuses by installing and supporting the kinds of regimes most likely to produce such in short order. Marvellous idea, that.
And now he's throwing an accusation of racism at him.
-
Say what you want about that. I don't have a strong opinion. But I do however believe this is evidence that racism is not the root of Dragon's statement. But The E just blew it off with a flippant response:
Yeah, sure, let's fight inequality, poverty and human rights abuses by installing and supporting the kinds of regimes most likely to produce such in short order. Marvellous idea, that.
It is my firm belief that encouraging the formation of autocratic regimes on the african continent is the wrong way to get stability back there. There are issues here that can't be solved by installing strong man regimes; and the past 60 years of post-colonial politics on the african continent show that, in my opinion.
Dragon's fascination with autocratic regimes, and his belief that they are somehow able to ensure stability (which isn't supported by historical facts), or good living conditions for those living in those regimes, shows a grave misunderstanding of history.
And now he's throwing an accusation of racism at him.
Yes. Because claiming that a certain set of people is "not ready for democracy" is stupid. Once upon a time, the ancient greeks were "not ready for democracy". Once upon a time, the americans weren't. The europeans weren't. And yet, we got there in the end. Who the **** are we to judge an entire continent unfit for democracy?
-
I'll let Dragon answer your questions.
But he's not racist and doesn't deserve to be called racist if your only argument for that is that he said something that in your opinion is stupid.
-
"Common" Middle Eastern people, as-is, are not fit to have so much power handed to them
This is racist bull****.
No. This isn't any more racist nor any more BS than stating "an average black man in the US is poorer than an average white man". Yes, uses a questionable way of dividing people. It's also factually correct. I'm not saying anything not backed by experimental data. Power had been handed to people in the Middle East. This power has then been misused. In every. single. case. Even Egypt is struggling, the military had to intervene twice before it sort-of stabilized. Yemen managed to mostly stabilize a few years ago, but it's been a complete mess very, very recently. WRT other democracies, see my previous post. See the pattern? I consider my assertion justifed and backed by facts. I might be somewhat prejudiced against Middle Eastern people, but only in the same way a hiring manager is prejudiced against a lazy, consistently under-performing employee. They are simply not living up to standards people in Western countries do.
Americas were ready for democracy. Ancient Greeks invented the bloody thing. Why do I know? Because it worked then. Yes, some didn't believe that Americans could pull the democracy off. They did, proving those people wrong. My belief unsupported by historical facts? How about it being supported by very much not-yet-historical ones? People of the Middle East could prove me wrong. In fact, I'd very much like them to. Come, build a working democracy! Build a democratic country that doesn't descend into chaos. When there's a single, peaceful, working government in the Middle East that isn't a monarchy of some kind, I'll take back what I said. You're free to believe that autocratic regimes won't solve anything. So far, neither anarchy nor democracy did, either. So what do you propose? I propose giving Emirs and Shahs another chance. Not because of historical evidence. Because of current, very much existent one. Just look at Yemen and at Oman. One suffered 11 civil wars, has multiple Human Rights issues, including human trafficking and still struggles maintaining order (to the point the US has a small contingent there). The other has strong ties to UN, no recent wars nor rebellions (despite being very multi-ethnic) and overall, is not a bad place to live in. There are more examples like this. To me, the pattern is obvious. There's probably a deep reason for that, it's probably worth researching, but for some reason, democracy simply doesn't work there.
-
Could that some reason be that european and asian countries benefit much more from an unstable middle east than from a stable one?
Nah, too far fetched. After all, what could they possibly have to gain from dealing with regimes with only one uncomplicated individual at the helm?
You say the people there aren't ready for democracy in the middle east. I say the politicians in Europe, China and America aren't.
-
Could that some reason be that european and asian countries benefit much more from an unstable middle east than from a stable one?
Nah, too far fetched. After all, what could they possibly have to gain from dealing with regimes with only one uncomplicated individual at the helm?
You say the people there aren't ready for democracy in the middle east. I say the politicians in Europe, China and America aren't.
So you trash Dragon for not presenting facts, and then you throw that out. That's interesting...
Nah, too far fetched.
Seems about right. After all, we've been benefitting from an unstable middle East for the last decade and more so much haven't we. Particularly Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran with their drive towards nuclear technology, and Syria, and we're really benefitting right now with the arrival of IS...
-
Depends whether "we" is "America in general" or just a particular subset of Americans. Oil prices are still up, and (I think) mercs are still doing merc stuff.
-
We is all. I don't know about China, but America and Europe all got sucked into this.
-
"middle eastern people are not ready for democracy" is not racism, not unless you somehow think they are genetically not ready, and I doubt Dragon meant that.
If you look at some opinion polls, you will see that often majorities of middle eastern people support things like killing apostates or stoning adulterers etc. Which is part of the ISIS ideology. If that is true, then they indeed dont deserve real democracy and are not ready for it. Nothing racist about it, its cultural.
-
We is all. I don't know about China, but America and Europe all got sucked into this.
By "Europe" he likely meant Russia and it's allies/lackeys. China, too. This is indeed a significant factory, but not the primary one. Notice how all those "democracies" usually arose because of one or the other superpower deposed the local king. Undoubtedly, some are just not wanting peace, both in and out of Middle East. But this only highlights the importance of going with monarchies in that case. It's not that China and Russia are not ready for democracy, they're not ready for peace. A smart, strong monarch would have an easier time avoiding a war (even a popular one) than an elected government. Also, it seems that monarchies are somewhat less affected by corruption for whatever reason.
If you look at some opinion polls, you will see that often majorities of middle eastern people support things like killing apostates or stoning adulterers etc. Which is part of the ISIS ideology. If that is true, then they indeed dont deserve real democracy and are not ready for it. Nothing racist about it, its cultural.
You got it. In the Middle East, democracy often boils down to tyranny of the majority, and the majority can be remarkably cruel. Notice that human rights record of the Middle Eastern monarchies is decent, if not up to Western standards. On the other hand, it's downright bad in the republics I mentioned. Indeed, looks like people in the region want religious law and suppression of women (maybe because women don't speak up, having been suppressed all their life, and if they do, they're raped/killed...). Power to the people = power to Islam in far too many cases, just because people listen to "Islamic" authorities, even if they're talking out of their backside (there's hardly anything in Koran that could justify all those atrocities). Egypt is a notable exception (one that does look somewhat hopeful), but it's situation is shaky. Libya, despite also looking hopeful, is ravaged by war, so it's difficult to say whether it'll survive as a democracy.
The problem here is the "Perfect Solution fallacy". We want to install a government that would be peaceful, would have a spotless human rights record and wouldn't discriminate against women. I say, have a monarchy that would allow beheadings for the most serious crimes, tax non-Muslims, that would declare a woman's word in court to be worth 50% of that of a man, but that would not slaughter people en masse and that would actually control the country. As long as women are even allowed into court, as long as non-Muslims are not cut down where they stand and the tax isn't "all you have", and as long as beheadings are administered by an actual, more-or-less secular court with proper procedures in place, it would be a significant improvement. Once that is achieved, we might think about doing something about those issues (and indeed, if the procedures are good and done properly, beheading could stay. Beats lethal injection IMO). Chances are, they can be ironed out over time, and we'll have a fairly modern, rapidly developing country at the end of the century. Maybe even in new 50s, depending on the country.
-
Frankly, we shouldn't be wanting to anything, governance-wise, in the Middle East.
One of the major problems in the Middle East has been constant meddling by more powerful nations in an attempt to get ahead, often at the expense of the locals. None of the various armed conflicts there would have been nearly as devastating without armaments coming in from those same more powerful nations that later sit back in horror and yell : "Holy ****, look at what they're doing to each other!" Democracy among Western nations has been as successful as it is largely because it was entirely self-composed. Nobody wandered into any of the Western powers and said "Hey, your system of governance is unfair, let's fix it for you." Rather, they sorted out their own nations to varying states of democratic freedom because it worked.
The Middle East does have some democracies. Pakistan claims to be one, and is at least tangentially associated with the Middle East. It's also covered in rights-abuses, the odd coup, and more than it's share of corruption. Israel is one, though it's got severe problems of its own. Even Iran is, at least on paper, a democracy of a kind. Part of the whole problem in that stretch of the world is Western powers thinking they can fix it.
So I think back to my opinion circa 2001: Quit arming dictators. Quit the ideological imposition of values. Quit meddling for economic benefit. When a terrorist organization rears its head and resorts to genocide or slaughter, we have bombs and special forces for that. But that doesn't mean we stay after and try to fix the country. That's up to the people who live there. In 2001, NATO should have confined its Afghan operations to air and special forces. Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions. Syria is yet another case where specialized intervention could have been conducted, and ISIS screams out for a good old fashioned airstrike+special ops deployment to eliminate as much of their forces and materiel as possible. But that's it. Western powers should have abandoned the notion of fixing other nations politically in the 1950s, but it seems we have to learn this lesson over and over every couple of decades.
It's not that Middle Eastern people aren't ready for democracy. It's that it's up to them to decide their governance systems. Yes, we can use military power to try to fix military mistakes we've made that have local consequences, and to stop genocides and mass murder, but that doesn't mean we have some noble obligation to fix their entire country in a manner that the locals either don't support, or are incapable of maintaining without Western arms, money, and logistical support. That's part of the reason that Iraq and Syria are such a cluster**** right now.
-
Quitting might be a good idea. In fact, I mentioned it a few posts ago. My other arguments assumed GTFO isn't an option for whatever reason. Isolating the place, letting it "burn out" and stabilize on it's own, perhaps it'd be the best way. But there are some problems with that.
1. Superpowers started this all. Basically, it was their meddling that caused this mess, so perhaps, it's their responsibility to restore a stable, even if nondemocratic Middle East. Not what they're currently doing, but I'm proposing something like this. It was through Cold War-era machinations that Shah of Iran (a pretty decent ruler, all things considered) got replaced by the warmongering theocracy Iran is now. Similar things messed up Iraq and Syria. Though not Afghanistan or Pakistan. Their problems go waaay back to the colonial times. Either way, it's superpowers' fault. It seems right to try to fix it, the mistake they are making is also demanding drastic improvements the people are simply not ready for. They don't realize they're improvements and don't even want them. So what can you do? Well, I've outlined one idea of mine about that that. Let them come up with those ideas themselves.
2. Israel. It's the only "Western" country that can't just get out and forget about the place. Since I don't think moving it now would be viable, something needs to be done to ensure it doesn't get crushed, or, if left to it's own devices, doesn't continue to destabilize the region. It has much greater stakes in the conflict than any other civilized country. Status quo isn't good for it, so something will have to change, sooner or later. Peace with Gaza is one thing, but Hamas is hardly the only group that wants to see Israel gone.
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to leave them alone. Perhaps it's the best our inept governments can pull off. They would never go through with what I'm proposing, few people can fathom that absolute, hereditary monarchy might actually be a good idea. They lack the guts to do what would be necessary to put those sultans on their thrones, not could they stomach installing and supporting a regime that they know to be much more primitive than a modern, Western democracy. Getting out and washing your hands is easier, not to mention requires significantly less competence. "Sorry, looks like we're doing no good. We're out, we can send you some cash after you stop fighting." doesn't seem exactly "proper" to me, but let's not fall for the perfect solution. It seems like the best they could realistically do, assuming it's even an option.
ISIS could be purged with the old "specops+airstrikes" combo, but a strong government would also be required to keep them from resurfacing as a guerilla, or even a very similar group with a different name. Unless they're killed off to a man, it's unlikely the idea will "die" completely, the place is so unstable that extremists have an easy time gaining support. For a permanent solution, there needs to be a strong, stable government in the area.
-
They don't realize they're improvements and don't even want them. So what can you do? Well, I've outlined one idea of mine about that that. Let them come up with those ideas themselves.
I don't think its a personal issue, I think that the political infrastructure for the kind of things that Western Governments want to inject into middle eastern states simply doesn't exist. It's the same reason why instituting a European style welfare state into the United States with no other political changes wouldn't work.
You make it sound like they're less intelligent than westerners.
-
You make it sound like they're less intelligent than westerners.
Intelligent? Maybe not. But what we do know for a fact is that they are less educated, and the education they do have is all too often religiously biased. Intelligence alone can't overcome neither lack of education and especially not bad one. There might be no "natural", biological difference, but cultural, educational and income level ones are very much present. Israel is a good example. It's own Arab population is just as educated as in any Western country. Doesn't stop it from being discriminated against, but they're perfectly good Israeli citizens.
I don't think its a personal issue, I think that the political infrastructure for the kind of things that Western Governments want to inject into middle eastern states simply doesn't exist. It's the same reason why instituting a European style welfare state into the United States with no other political changes wouldn't work.
It's the case, too, but remember that there are personal reasons as well. They're not prepared to accept, for whatever reason, concepts like gender equality, religious freedom, etc. Any attempt to impose those would go against their beliefs. Islam is very deeply ingrained into peoples' minds, and that includes (like many other religions) a hefty dose of misogyny and lack of tolerance towards other religions. The basic assumption of a democracy is that people are equal, but Islam doesn't exactly allow that. A democracy out there, if it survived, would still be pretty bigoted and misogynistic. On top of that, the West insists on it's own "style" of democracy. In the future, there might be advanced, educated democracies in the region. But they will be different, "Mid-East-style" democracies. There's a multitude of reasons, both personal and political, why democracies in the region just don't seem to work.
-
It would be a good idea to make a clear distinction between saying that "X people are not ready for democracy" and "the circumstances of the society are not ideal to support democratic governance".
There's a lot of reasons why democracies seem to fail faster than authoritarian regimes, most important one being that democracies are usually unwilling to use deadly force against their own citizens.
The reasons for both democratic and authoritarian regimes failing periodically in certain regions are the exact same:
-low standards of living
-low education
-regional instability driven by competing factions that loathe each other to varying extents
I would fully agree that any nation struggling with these problems is probably going to have problems with implementation of democracy.
Low standards of living usually correlate with apathy in voting. They also increase the support for extremism - either political ideologies or religious ideologies, take your pick. Extremes are generally bad for democracy because of the typical lack of respect they have towards anyone who thinks differently...
Low education is a problem because it allows people with good charisma and rhetoric abilities to sway them pretty much however they want. This applies to both secular and religiously motivated factions, although scaring ignorant people with supernatural nonsense is generally easier than scaring them with natural things (both are valid strategies for populists though).
The regional instability is connected to the two former facts, but mostly the result of population consisting of several demographics that in themselves are fairly homogenous, don't usually mix very much, and have a lot of prejudice in their interactions, at least on the political level.
What I'm saying is, until these problems are somewhat diminished, any government installed in these troubled regions will likely fall sooner or later, whether it's democratic or authoritarian, secular or religious. The people are the same anywhere. Any group of people affected by such crippling socio-cultural issues would be "not ready for democracy", as someone put it.
-
An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control. Especially a hereditary monarchy, which has a fairly strong (to those people) argument of being "legitimate rulers" and a divine right to rule. Not to mention from what I've seen of them, they tend to be less corrupt. A dictatorial regime such as Qaddafi's was pretty stable, all things considered, but had an enormous corruption problem, Qaddafi himself was a bad ruler and got himself overthrown when he overdid his antics. Somehow, Oman or Kuwait were spared by the Arab Spring, and are doing well. This does depend on whether the monarch is any good, but notice that people whose ambition is grabbing power are usually not really suited for actually ruling anything. A monarch who is born into power, especially with proper upbringing, might have less chance of turning out a self-centered nutjob. Even if the dynasty in question was deposed some time ago, it has a chance of giving us a decent, intelligent ruler.
Also, it's not only about the fact that a democracies have trouble surviving in the region. Even if you do increase standards to living and start the process of secularizing education, you still have a population which is highly religious, easy to manipulate and bigoted accordingly to their religion. They are going to elect people who let them being bigoted and play along with religious authorities. That's what I also meant by "Not ready for democracy". I have a feeling that democracy in the region, even if it somehow stabilized, would have a great problem with minorities and women treatment. An authoritarian regime could attempt to mitigate this (within reason, of course), but the democratic one is bound by the majority's whims. I'm not sure if a democracy would have a better record than monarchy, all things considered.
Of course, it's true that any government in the area would face major troubles and have a good chance of failing. However, an authoritarian regime would, IMO, be better suited to handling those and somewhat less vulnerable. Even if it means using deadly force, so far it seems that not using it instantly puts you at a major disadvantage against many, many extremist groups around. Whatever kind of government is installed, it must be willing to use force, including deadly force, against such groups, of it's chances of survival are very, very slim. Hard to do in a democracy, so it's yet another reason why an authoritarian regime could be the only one that would last long enough to make a difference.
-
An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control.
Are you deliberately ignoring 80% of recent history in the Middle East, or are you simply unaware? Authoritarian governments in the area survive long enough, true, but they generally do so by treading all over the concept of "human rights" until someone tells them to ****-off with a big stick because they're causing more problems than they solve.
Let's take a look at the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in the last 20 years or so, shall we?
Saddam Hussein, Iraq. Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and ruled Iraq with terror and force.
Ali Khamenei, Iran. Executed tens of thousands of political dissidents, remains a hotbed for human rights abuses.
Bashar Al-Assad, Syria. Pick up a ****ing newspaper.
Muammar Ghaddafi, Libya. Financed and instigated multiple wars and rebellions in the region. Killed hundreds of his own citizens.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt. Probably the least egregious entry on this list, and was still responsible for systematically suppressing basic human expression and severely punishing violator.s
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt. Lasted for less than two years before violent protests forced him out of office.
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia. Overthrown by (thankfully) civil protests after systematic oppression of human rights and poor economic conditions.
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia. This place is one of those places that's famous for its devotion to oppressive Sharia law. That should tell you something, even if it's relatively 'stable'.
Abdullah II, Jordan. Literally the only stable, human rights abiding authoritarian nation in the entire region. The only one. That should tell you something.
-
he didn't say it was likely, just possible :p
-
An authoritarian government could, perhaps, survive long enough and be effective enough to bring those problems under control.
Are you deliberately ignoring 80% of recent history in the Middle East, or are you simply unaware? Authoritarian governments in the area survive long enough, true, but they generally do so by treading all over the concept of "human rights" until someone tells them to ****-off with a big stick because they're causing more problems than they solve.
Let's take a look at the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in the last 20 years or so, shall we?
Saddam Hussein, Iraq. Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens and ruled Iraq with terror and force.
Ali Khamenei, Iran. Executed tens of thousands of political dissidents, remains a hotbed for human rights abuses.
Bashar Al-Assad, Syria. Pick up a ****ing newspaper.
Muammar Ghaddafi, Libya. Financed and instigated multiple wars and rebellions in the region. Killed hundreds of his own citizens.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt. Probably the least egregious entry on this list, and was still responsible for systematically suppressing basic human expression and severely punishing violator.s
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt. Lasted for less than two years before violent protests forced him out of office.
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia. Overthrown by (thankfully) civil protests after systematic oppression of human rights and poor economic conditions.
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia. This place is one of those places that's famous for its devotion to oppressive Sharia law. That should tell you something, even if it's relatively 'stable'.
Abdullah II, Jordan. Literally the only stable, human rights abiding authoritarian nation in the entire region. The only one. That should tell you something.
No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs. Yes, Saudi Arabia is bigoted, Wahhabist hole and Abdullah bin Abdulaziz is an old goat who's living way too long for my liking. Still, compare this to all the people above him. Saudi Arabia is stable, rich and quite powerful. While it is rather oppressive, it seems that overall, status quo isn't that bad for Muslim men. This is more than you can say about the dictators, or about complete anarchy.
You're right about Abdullah II, he's a good ruler. But let's also not forget Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said, from Oman. His country is remarkably free and fairly rich. You also forgot Kuwaiti Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. Kuwait has remarkable press freedom and is a fairly nice place to live. There's also the president of UAE, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. In UAE, presidency traditionally goes to the Emir of Abu Dhabi, so that's also a monarchy. There's also Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, of Qatar, which is downright nice as far as the Middle East goes (well, thanks to his father, but still. He's been on the throne only since 2013 His father would count as well). That brings our total to 5 good authoritarian rulers, coincidentally all hereditary monarchs. And that's only the currently reigning ones, I could mention their fathers as well (since you included deposed tyrants), doubling the number. Even the old pervert Abdualziz is a better ruler than Morsi or Ghaddafi, and certainly better than what's happening in Syria. Also, I suspect Saudi Arabia might take a turn for the better once that old goat goes beneath the sand, depending on which Crown Prince will take the helm after that.
Also, notice how long Ghaddafi survived. He was a horrible ruler, dictator and all, but he managed to keep his position. Look at Iran, which, despite it's oppressiveness, is very stable and very strong, to the point of being one of the most dangerous countries out there. It becomes clear that if anything is going to survive as a government there, it's likely going to be authoritarian. A large part of my previous post dealt with why it's within everyone's best interests to have dynastic monarchs as those authoritarian rulers, instead of power-hungry tinpot dictators.
Oh, and one last thing. Libya and Tunisia are in Africa, not Middle East. There is geographic and cultural distance between them and, say, Syria. Especially in the latter case, Tunisia is nowhere near the Middle East. Libya is closer, but still distinct. Both are separated from the worst by a large swatch of desert and by Egypt. I'd be careful with using them as an example in a discussion about Middle East, some things about them still apply out there, some do not. Afghanistan and Pakistan likewise. They're in Asia and have some crucial differences, especially Pakistan (historically a part of India). Generally, when I talk about Middle East, I mean Arabian Peninsula and some immediate surroundings like Egypt and Turkey (I'm excluding Cyprus and Bahrain, since they're pretty detached form the events, even though they're usually counted as Middle East).
-
Your point is predicated on authoritarian regimes solving problems. All of them mentioned in this thread so far with the singular exception of Abdullah II of Jordan have caused far more problems than they ever solved.
I also want to draw close attention to this phrase:
While it is rather oppressive, it seems that overall, status quo isn't that bad for Muslim men.
Big ****ing deal. Describing a situation that is beneficial for a minority of a region's residents and abhorrent for all others is not a good situation.
-
No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs.
You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a difference between the two.
-
How the hell would you get a monarch in a country which currently doesn't have a monarchy anyway?
-
Divine right, of course. How else would they manage to cleanse their respective countries of
filthy Kurds Shiites Sunnis Jews Westerners problems?
-
No. Read my previous post again. All of it, not just the first sentence. All but two of the people you listed are dictators. I was clearly advocating legitimate monarchs.
You still seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's a difference between the two.
There is. It's not a mistaken impression, it's a fact. They are different kinds of people, there's indeed a fundamental difference between the two. If you take a look at the monarchs and at dictators, you'll see that very clearly. The mentality of a rightful king and that of a dictator are very, very different.
Dictators ascend to power by force and by their own effort. They're people who carve power and enjoy bossing people around. Otherwise, they wouldn't want to be dictators. They also often have no idea about how to run a country, seldom being educated, intelligent people. Usually, they come from military background (it's easier to seize power that way), which means they rule the country like they would command a military unit. A recurring trend among dictators is also narcissism, forcing people worship their own person. This is likely what drives many of them into power in first place. A dictator can also be sociopathic, which makes it easier for him to rise to power (as he can manipulate people around him). Arguably a good trait for a ruler, but also a very dangerous one unless one dedicates himself completely to the well-being of the state. Due to the aforementioned narcissism, this doesn't happen very often. Dictators are not pragmatic, nor are they very concerned with well-being of their country. Of course, there are exceptions to those, but a dictator will exhibit at least some of those traits.
How do I know that? Well, people without those traits simply don't have a desire to rise to power in a way dictators do. To become a dictator, one must:
1. Want absolute power.
2. Manipulate people into supporting one's takeover, by whatever means necessary.
3. Execute the takeover, often violently, without regard for anything else.
4. Maintain absolute power at any and all costs, without regard for anyone else.
For a single person to do all this, a certain set of traits is needed. Anyone missing too many of them will either fail, be quickly deposed or not even attempt to become a dictator. Only a certain kind of person is capable of taking over in this manner, and holding onto it. Many of those traits are undesirable for a modern ruler. A dictator is always dangerous. A stupid one to his own people, an intelligent one to everyone else.
Monarchs, on the other hand, generally are rich. That means they can afford high education. Also, being raised in a royal family means that they have a different mindset than people who ascend to power. They don't seek power, because they already have it. As such, they're often (not always) remarkably free from the desire to abuse it. Notice how none of the monarchies I listed display signs of fanatic personality cults so common in dictatorial countries. There is still a certain level of this, but it's more "ritualized" and not as strongly enforced (much like in Britain, for example, a small degree of reverence for the monarch can be healthy). Also, royal families are generally intelligent, often because a country with a stupid king tended to get conquered in the past. It's not exactly an ironclad rule, and even an otherwise intelligent dynasty can produce idiots (this tends to do a lot of harm to the country), but even Abdulaziz isn't a complete moron, just an old, overtly religious pervert. Nonetheless, he managed to keep Saudi Arabia powerful and important, didn't get assassinated or overthrown, which is more than can be said for, say, Saddam Hussein. Even Arab Spring didn't hit Saudis that hard. This is not a coincidence. Not a single king or emir was overthrown during the protests. Not a single monarchy even had very significant unrest. Almost all dictatorships were hit and hit hard. Coincidence? I don't think so. There is a major difference between monarchs and dictators.
Big ****ing deal. Describing a situation that is beneficial for a minority of a region's residents and abhorrent for all others is not a good situation.
First, "Muslim men" are about half of Saudi population. It's not a good situation, but it's a better one than one which is abhorrent for everyone, and for their neighbors as well. As you might have noticed, I'm not exactly fond of Abdulaziz. Still, he'd be a net improvement over chaos and war that rages on in Syria, for example. Saudi Arabia is stable and fairly secure, despite it's many flaws. Again, there is no perfect solution. If you had a choice between Assad and Abdulaziz, who would you chose?
-
There is. It's not a mistaken impression, it's a fact. They are different kinds of people, there's indeed a fundamental difference between the two. If you take a look at the monarchs and at dictators, you'll see that very clearly. The mentality of a rightful king and that of a dictator are very, very different.
Dictators ascend to power by force and by their own effort.
So Monarchs are just handed power because of their good looks?
They're people who carve power and enjoy bossing people around.
Whereas Monarchs will despise every moment in which they are forced to exercise power?
Otherwise, they wouldn't want to be dictators. They also often have no idea about how to run a country, seldom being educated, intelligent people.
Whereas Monarchs are paragons of higher education?
Usually, they come from military background (it's easier to seize power that way), which means they rule the country like they would command a military unit.
Last I checked, military service is still more or less required in some of the more successful monarchies around.
A recurring trend among dictators is also narcissism, forcing people worship their own person.
And Monarchs are completely immune to the adoration of the masses all of a sudden?
This is likely what drives many of them into power in first place. A dictator can also be sociopathic, which makes it easier for him to rise to power (as he can manipulate people around him).
Something that no monarch in history has ever done, I'm sure.
Arguably a good trait for a ruler, but also a very dangerous one unless one dedicates himself completely to the well-being of the state. Due to the aforementioned narcissism, this doesn't happen very often. Dictators are not pragmatic, nor are they very concerned with well-being of their country. Of course, there are exceptions to those, but a dictator will exhibit at least some of those traits.
How do I know that? Well, people without those traits simply don't have a desire to rise to power in a way dictators do. To become a dictator, one must:
1. Want absolute power.
2. Manipulate people into supporting one's takeover, by whatever means necessary.
3. Execute the takeover, often violently, without regard for anything else.
4. Maintain absolute power at any and all costs, without regard for anyone else.
For a single person to do all this, a certain set of traits is needed. Anyone missing too many of them will either fail, be quickly deposed or not even attempt to become a dictator. Only a certain kind of person is capable of taking over in this manner, and holding onto it. Many of those traits are undesirable for a modern ruler. A dictator is always dangerous. A stupid one to his own people, an intelligent one to everyone else.
So what you're telling me here is that the difference between a Monarch and a Dictator is that the Monarch is the child of a Dictator. Not that there is anything intrinsically different.
Monarchs, on the other hand, generally are rich.
Yes, owning countries generally does imply a certain amount of affluence.
That means they can afford high education. Also, being raised in a royal family means that they have a different mindset than people who ascend to power.
Yes. Usually one that is much worse (i. e. no experience of hardship, no experience in dealing with common folk).
They don't seek power, because they already have it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a war a couple decades ago that got started because one monarch sought more power? You know, a little, hardly remarkable incident called WORLD WAR ONE?
As such, they're often (not always) remarkably free from the desire to abuse it. Notice how none of the monarchies I listed display signs of fanatic personality cults so common in dictatorial countries.
What is North Korea, then? By your own definition, it is a monarchy.
There is still a certain level of this, but it's more "ritualized" and not as strongly enforced (much like in Britain, for example, a small degree of reverence for the monarch can be healthy).
Hmmm, remind me, was that law in Thailand that put extreme punishments for disparaging the royals ever repealed?
Also, royal families are generally intelligent, often because a country with a stupid king tended to get conquered in the past.
Really? Please cite comparative studies.
It's not exactly an ironclad rule, and even an otherwise intelligent dynasty can produce idiots (this tends to do a lot of harm to the country), but even Abdulaziz isn't a complete moron, just an old, overtly religious pervert. Nonetheless, he managed to keep Saudi Arabia powerful and important, didn't get assassinated or overthrown, which is more than can be said for, say, Saddam Hussein. Even Arab Spring didn't hit Saudis that hard. This is not a coincidence. Not a single king or emir was overthrown during the protests. Not a single monarchy even had very significant unrest. Almost all dictatorships were hit and hit hard. Coincidence? I don't think so. There is a major difference between monarchs and dictators.
Yes, there is. One is an autocratic dictator who rose to power out of their own means, the other is an autocratic dictator who has had power handed to him from his parents. Both are autocratic Dictators.
-
You don't know what you are talking about The_E because you are not in the higher class, you lack the distinct flavor of the blue blood in your veins, how could you possibly understand how worse is a red blood tyrant than an educated, well fed, well behaved at the table, divinely attributed blue magical blooded King, one who knows how to turn a phrase or two with the most aristocratic posture ever enacted?
The_E, you just can't. Neither you nor me. Let's face it, we are little better than animals, we even have red blood for ****s sake. All that may come from our ranks can't possibly smell good, all chaos and uncivility at the table. The humour is gross, the perfume unsophisticated, and we even practice low-level sports like that thing the indigenous call "foot ball" or some such. Oh dear.
-
That is the unfortunate truth of our existance, I fear.
-
Even if you are correct Dragon (and I seriously doubt you are) you've forgotten to explain how the **** you go about installing a monarchy in a country that doesn't currently have one.
-
Most Middle Eastern countries had monarchies up until relatively recently. While borders changed, Iran had Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (that was one great monarch... Shame he got deposed, Israel would be having a much easier time), Iraq had Faisal II. Their descendants could be reinstated, there are still royalists in Iran, though they're persecuted by the current government. Hashemites (Faisal II was one of them) could also potentially have a claim to Syria. The problem with Iraqi royalty is that the main line was all murdered. In general, after the colonial period, most Arab states became kingdoms. Descendants of those kings could, perhaps, still be found. Now that I searched around, this doesn't look as hopeful as I thought (Iraqi revolutionaries were quite through with exterminating the royal family, as it turns out), but perhaps there are still some of them left.
So Monarchs are just handed power because of their good looks?
So what you're telling me here is that the difference between a Monarch and a Dictator is that the Monarch is the child of a Dictator. Not that there is anything intrinsically different.
Generally, monarchs are born into long-running dynasties. A monarch isn't a child of a dictator, he's a child of a long line of past rulers. This is also why they're handed power. Not because of their good looks, but also not because they carve it. Technically, any monarch will be a descendant of a "dictator" (excluding those in clan systems), but this is only because in ancient times, somebody had to start the dynasty. This doesn't matter, though. What matters is that they've come from a long line of people who ruled the land before them.
Whereas Monarchs will despise every moment in which they are forced to exercise power?
No, but they'll only see it as what is really is: A means to an end. Indeed, a monarch who doesn't like ruling wouldn't be much good. But it's important not to rule for the sake of ruling, but for the good of one's country. Someone raised into power, interacting with more experienced rulers on a daily basis will likely be taught about responsibility.
Last I checked, military service is still more or less required in some of the more successful monarchies around.
It's true that many monarchs, both in the East and West serve in the military. However, it's never their "primary" occupation. A dictator is generally a long-time military leader, while a prince will only serve long enough to understand how the military really works (a crucial skill for any ruler). Which brings us to:
Yes. Usually one that is much worse (i. e. no experience of hardship, no experience in dealing with common folk).
Military service often provides that to princes, and while they do experience less hardships than most people, a good ruler will ensure that his descendants aren't completely detached from the common folk. Military service does that to a degree, college education does this, too (though in a different areas). All in all, royals seem to have a pretty good grasp of how their domains work.
Whereas Monarchs are paragons of higher education?
Regardless of them being any good in their college, the receive kind of education most dictators simply do not have. This is what I've been talking about. Dictators are, in most cases, not prepared in the slightest for ruling a country, while most royals know well in advance that they're going to do so, and get appropriate education.
And Monarchs are completely immune to the adoration of the masses all of a sudden?
Well, it doesn't seem to go into their heads nearly as much as it does into dictators' ones. Perhaps it's that they're used to it, considering their parents and everyone around them are essentially celebrities. It's good to have some "customary" adoration for the monarch, and if the monarch in question is worth this respect, then people likely wouldn't mind. If he isn't, then he's in trouble anyway, from both family, other rulers and his own people. It seems to be pretty well understood, I suppose it's common knowledge that if a monarch has honest, unenforced respect of his people, then he's going to have a lot easier time ruling them.
Something that no monarch in history has ever done, I'm sure.
Quite the contrary, some of the most successful ones resorted to manipulation, especially when it came to other royals. But they were dedicated to their country, not themselves. Indeed, for a long time, a monarch and the country were considered one and the same. See Hamlet, where the King of Norway is just called "Norway". There's a similar sentiment among English aristocrats, they're often referred to by the name of their estate. Monarchs are hardly immune to narcissism, of course, but it's not a given. For a dictator, narcissism is almost necessary to gain power in the first place.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a war a couple decades ago that got started because one monarch sought more power? You know, a little, hardly remarkable incident called WORLD WAR ONE?
You're very, very wrong. By stating "WWI got started because a monarch got power-hungry" you're oversimplifying a lot. It got started due to a mighty political mess that was Europe at the time. There was far more to it than power plays. A quagmire of alliances, treaties, obligations of all sorts, power plays and diplomatic meddling made Europe of the time a powder keg, which was lit finally lit in Sarajevo.
Yes, there is. One is an autocratic dictator who rose to power out of their own means, the other is an autocratic dictator who has had power handed to him from his parents. Both are autocratic Dictators.
And... you missed the whole point. Your last sentence indicates you're completely unaware just how much of a difference this makes. A king thinks, acts and rules differently from a dictator. Yes, they're both autocrats. That's where similarities end.
What is North Korea, then? By your own definition, it is a monarchy.
Yes, it is. And the strangest, most pathological instance in the world. The first ruler was a dictator, but he then started a dynasty molded into his own image. By this point, it has many traits of a monarchy, but twisted in a really weird way. It's peculiar in that it's a horrible, yet oddly stable place. It's incompetently ran, but at the same time, it's also powerful and threatening. It shouldn't have lasted, not as long as it did, but here it is. I can't say if Kim dynasty produces geniuses, morons or madmen, but it's clearly an unique phenomenon. I wouldn't really compare it to monarchies, dictatorships, or anything else for that matter. It's a unique case kept up by a combination of it's geopolitical situation, culture and a lot of brainwashing.
-
Dragon do you actually live in a parallel world where there are functional absolute monarchies in the 21st century? Because it's definitely not the one I'm in. You basically seem to have this idealised model of how an absolute monarchy works and all the advantages it has that applies to nothing that has ever ****ing existed.
-
That's a lot of wild speculative theory, without any evidence to back it up. "Oh look at these awesome kings that were but no more", isn't that something so easy to say? Nostalgia is so flawed and so selective it's not even facepalm material really.
I'm still waiting for a good unbiased comparative study that shows monarchies to be better than republics. Nevermind the moral truth that a monarchy is objectively inferior to a republic for the simple fact that a monarchy suggests there is a special kind of people who deserve more than all the others by birthright. A republic denies this idea and for this alone is superior.
I am sensitive to the idea that monarchies are better than plain dictatorships. It might be right, it might not be. While it is true that dictators are often crueler and psyhopathic, it's also arguable that in some cases, such ruthlessness is required. Only in careful study could we reach a conclusion, but if I had to choose, yes, I'd choose a monarch over a dictator.
-
Another fun thing to point out: Dragon's love of the monarchy is partly founded on his belief that the monarch will be able to train their heir to be a competent ruler. Anyone who knows literally anything about any monarchy ever is probably too busy laughing right now to continue reading.
-
Another fun thing to point out: Dragon's love of the monarchy is partly founded on his belief that the monarch will be able to train their heir to be a competent ruler.
It's literally the only correct thing you said so far. And you know what? That belief is quite well founded. Do you know how much effort goes into ensuring the continuation of the dynasty? In the past, being a king was about two things: ruling a country and fathering a heir. It's been well understood since antiquity: a great king without a worthy heir is a temporary solution, nothing more. Each monarchy has a sprawling dynasty, some even use an elective system to pick the best crown prince for the job. You're underestimating just how well that works, the few monarchies that still exist are usually pretty stable. Do your research before you post.
Dragon do you actually live in a parallel world where there are functional absolute monarchies in the 21st century? Because it's definitely not the one I'm in.
That explains a lot, actually. :) Since a great big part of the Middle East (hint: Saudi Arabia is functional, even though there are many things wrong with it, it works) is apparently absent in your universe, you've got nothing to do in this thread.
I am sensitive to the idea that monarchies are better than plain dictatorships. It might be right, it might not be. While it is true that dictators are often crueler and psyhopathic, it's also arguable that in some cases, such ruthlessness is required. Only in careful study could we reach a conclusion, but if I had to choose, yes, I'd choose a monarch over a dictator.
My point exactly. Previously, I gave a detailed rundown of why republics in the Middle East don't survive. I'm strongly leaning towards belief that those two choices is all we have, since democratic regimes seem to tend towards degenerating into dictatorships, or collapsing entirely from internal strife (as it's about to happen to Iraq). As such, I'm advocating monarchy. While I don't have a definite study, there are many statistics in which Middle Eastern monarchies come out ahead of dictatorships and republics. There might be other circumstances at play, but the trend is rather apparent.
That's a lot of wild speculative theory, without any evidence to back it up. "Oh look at these awesome kings that were but no more", isn't that something so easy to say? Nostalgia is so flawed and so selective it's not even facepalm material really.
That's why I'm referring to modern kings and using historical evidence sparingly. "Oh, look at these decent kings who are", rather. I mentioned Shah of Iran, because he was one of the best rulers in the area, progressive, secular, accepting of Israel and quite pro-Western. Indeed, he got himself outsted exactly because of that, he was too secular for Iranian religious authorities. His case illustrates, in part, why reforming the Middle East is so though (well, that, and why foreign meddling never ends well).
-
So I did my research, the ever-so-stable Saudi monarchy is still in its second generation of monarchs and has already seen one deposition and one assassination. Thumbs up for reliable monarchic succession!
-
Most Middle Eastern countries had monarchies up until relatively recently. While borders changed, Iran had Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi (that was one great monarch... Shame he got deposed, Israel would be having a much easier time), Iraq had Faisal II. Their descendants could be reinstated, there are still royalists in Iran, though they're persecuted by the current government. Hashemites (Faisal II was one of them) could also potentially have a claim to Syria. The problem with Iraqi royalty is that the main line was all murdered. In general, after the colonial period, most Arab states became kingdoms. Descendants of those kings could, perhaps, still be found. Now that I searched around, this doesn't look as hopeful as I thought (Iraqi revolutionaries were quite through with exterminating the royal family, as it turns out), but perhaps there are still some of them left.
So you would put a completely untrained, unknown person in charge of an entire country because he just so happened to have the right bloodline and expect this to turn out well?
-
I also looked up the Shah. His dynasty consisted of:
- him
- his dad.
It's pretty amusing to compare Dragon's idealised view of a monarchy with the "dictator plus son(s)" lineages he points to as real-world examples.
-
So you would put a completely untrained, unknown person in charge of an entire country because he just so happened to have the right bloodline and expect this to turn out well?
I'd expect them to be some kind of aristocracy in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Though now that I've checked, I'm less sure of that. While I'd expect them not to advertise they fact they survived, we have no confirmation that there's any Hashemite actually left alive, much less politically active. Chances are, the revolution killed off everyone but the most distant cousins. If they survived as nobility and maintained high standards of living and education, then they could be returned to the throne.
So I did my research, the ever-so-stable Saudi monarchy is still in its second generation of monarchs and has already seen one deposition and one assassination. Thumbs up for reliable monarchic succession!
Saudis are in a second generation only because Ibn Saud had quite a few wives and was apparently quite vigorous with them. His youngest children are outliving some of his grandchildren. As for the assassinations, they happen in democracies, too. You can't please everyone, and some are more violent about it than others.
I also looked up the Shah. His dynasty consisted of:
- him
- his dad.
It's pretty amusing to compare Dragon's idealised view of a monarchy with the "dictator plus son(s)" lineages he points to as real-world examples.
Perhaps The Last Shah of Iran isn't exactly the best example to cite. His dynasty ruled for about half a decade and was pretty short. Perhaps I shouldn't have used him as an example. Still, you've got to agree he was a great man. I'm personally fond of him, he was everything the current ruler of Iran isn't, and his fall kind of embodies everything that went wrong with the place (foreign meddling, religious nuts, Cold War...). His father's case is odd, because despite deposing (peacefully) the previous ruler, Rezā Khan ruled as a king, and like a king. He was also elected Prime Minister before his takeover, and it wasn't violent. It seems that he was some sort of minor noble, but I couldn't find much on him. In general, Iran's case likely is neither a good example "for" nor "against".
One should also remember that those dynasties all gained their lands very recently, usually somewhere between WWI and WWII. Before, they were noble houses, tribal leaders and such. It's to be expected they didn't rule an actual country for as long as European monarchs, simply because there were no countries to rule, just colonies.
If you want to delve into individual cases, then you'd see some departures from my general assessment, as usual. Psychological analysis is better done on a single person, and there's no such thing as "average monarch", because there are few of them. Still, you missed my general point. It's the best shot we have. A good chunk of my argumentation was comparing monarchies to other regimes and pointing out why, in the current situation, they're the best government that would work. You keep dismissing monarchy, but did you think what other choices are there? I propose we swap. You'll propose a solution, and I'll tell you how wrong it is. I'm not saying monarchy is the best thing in the world, ever (or anything about it's morality, for that matter), but only about it's viability in the current situation.
-
You are so mired in confirmation bias it's hilarious.
-
I cannot be reading this thread right. I cannot be seeing someone, in the year 2014, unironically attempt to argue that absolute or near-absolute monarchies are a superior form of governance.
Another fun thing to point out: Dragon's love of the monarchy is partly founded on his belief that the monarch will be able to train their heir to be a competent ruler.
It's literally the only correct thing you said so far. And you know what? That belief is quite well founded. Do you know how much effort goes into ensuring the continuation of the dynasty? In the past, being a king was about two things: ruling a country and fathering a heir. It's been well understood since antiquity: a great king without a worthy heir is a temporary solution, nothing more. Each monarchy has a sprawling dynasty, some even use an elective system to pick the best crown prince for the job. You're underestimating just how well that works, the few monarchies that still exist are usually pretty stable. Do your research before you post.
It's like you don't realize that the few monarchies that exist today are the exception to the rule. [Edited to repair atrocious grammar]
Bah, PH, ninja'd me.
-
Dragon's weird ideas are not novel around here. I find them amusing at least. But yes, MP is right: the only reason why current monarchies are any good is precisely because all the "bad ones" have been "naturally selected" against. That is, they failed the Darwin test. Obviously, the ones who survived "are not that bad". An abhorrent non sequitur to this factoid would be to then conclude that monarchies are actually good. No.
-
yeah, anyone who thinks a monarchy is a good idea needs to watch Game of Thrones.
-
You are so mired in confirmation bias it's hilarious.
And you failed to actually address anything I said. Could you say something correct again? You're obviously missing the whole point.
I cannot be reading this thread right. I cannot be seeing someone, in the year 2014, unironically attempt to argue that absolute or near-absolute monarchies are a superior form of governance.
You're right. You aren't reading this thread right. I'm not arguing monarchies to be superior across the board (dunno what gave you all that idea). They might be, however, a superior solution in the current situation in the Middle East. That's what I'm trying to tell you. All I said was geared towards Middle East, it's problems and their solutions. An absolute monarchy is incapable of running a modern country, as it's too complex of a task for a single person to manage. An advisory body required would be too large and too powerful for such a monarchy to be truly absolute, and the modern society is (usually...) educated enough to handle responsibility. I've changed my position somewhat since I stopped relying on what I know about Polish democracy in general and seen how it looks in the West. Turns out, Poland is just bad at democracy. In France or Germany, and especially in the US, it works a lot, lot better. But on the other hand, it seems to either collapse onto itself or turn into a dictatorship in the Middle East, which is why I don't think it's suitable there.
Dragon's weird ideas are not novel around here. I find them amusing at least. But yes, MP is right: the only reason why current monarchies are any good is precisely because all the "bad ones" have been "naturally selected" against. That is, they failed the Darwin test. Obviously, the ones who survived "are not that bad". An abhorrent non sequitur to this factoid would be to then conclude that monarchies are actually good. No.
I think you're misunderstanding the whole process of how governments evolved. Obviously, a bad government (no matter what kind) won't survive. It'll either be replaced, conquered or have to adjust itself. This happens in all governments. Good politicians learn on mistakes of their predecessors, good heirs learn on mistakes of their ancestors, and good dictators (hypothetically speaking) would learn on mistakes of whoever they replaced. If a regime fails to learn, then it'll be replaced, either by it's own people, or by it's neighbors. This is the natural order of things. North Korea notwithstanding, a bad government generally can't last. Also, what's important an unsuited government won't last, either. Yes, it is possible, though rare, for a government to be "too good" or rather "too advanced" and get overthrown.
Now, another matter is how a single regime evolves. They all started out as monarchies, because a monarchy was, once upon a time, the most suitable regime to the task. As time went on, countries advanced. People became more educated, richer and more suited to responsibility. Absolute monarchies gradually stopped being suitable to the task of governing those countries. More and more power was in hands of advisers and ministers, since a single monarch couldn't keep an eye on everything. As general life expectancy grew, monarchies began to react slower (it's a crucial fact I recently realized and didn't took into account in my earlier arguments, I've since revised my position somewhat), especially considering the royals were among the first to have their lives prolonged. At the same time, education necessary for responsible political decisions was becoming more accessible, to the point democracy became not only a viable, but a superior alternative. The transition was fairly natural, depending on it's nature we've got a constitutional monarchy or a republic. In fact, I now support the theory that there's no regime that is "superior across the board". There are only ones that are suited to the current situation of the country in question, and ones that are not. It's good when a country has a government it needs. It's bad when it doesn't.
My point is, Middle East is behind the curve relative to European countries. As such, monarchies are much more suited there. Notice how strong religion is in the region, how women are treated and what common people think of human rights. The mentality of people there resembles 18th-19th century mentality at best and middle ages one at worst. Lack of education, relatively "recent" religion (meaning it's noticeably less "devolved" and "dated" than others) and treatment that the region received from the superpowers for much of the recent history are likely to blame. I don't think it's really possible to accelerate this evolution by much, whatever the cause of it being slowed down.
-
And the point everyone else is making is that your logic is wrong. You're seeing monarchies which work (so you claim) not because monarchies are good, but because you're only seeing the monarchies that worked. The monarchies that didn't work were deposed, leading to massive amounts of bloodshed in many cases. And you're proposing that we bring those failed monarchies back?
You're claiming that Iran isn't a good example. I'm going to claim it's the best example because it's a country where someone actually did what you claimed was the best solution, brought back the monarchy. How well did that work out? Why would other countries be any different?
-
Dragon's saying a Monarchy is the best shot. ****ty, but the best.
And... It seems some peeps here are advocating democracy over there?? How is that supposed to work without an educated, reasonable populace? It might work in certain places over there Idk.
If not democracy, what was your proposal? I've not really heard any ideas besides Dragon's. So what were yours? Or were you trying to say the region is hopeless and should be left to its own devices?
SSpeaking of which, saying that someone needs to watch Game of Thrones... that's a knee-slapper there.
BTW, if you want to know how a constitutional Republic works, watch west wing. Bahahaha.
-
So what were yours? Or were you trying to say the region is hopeless and should be left to its own devices?
That was the general jist of it. (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88229.msg1761558#msg1761558)
-
The West has been meddling for years now. Do you really think it's helped?
-
I think that withdrawal was a mistake. The method of what we did over there may have been flawed, but once committed, we should have stayed.
Any of the folks over there that put their necks on the line to help us (and by extension, their country) are dead, dying or hiding.
Same as Vietnam. Maybe we shouldn't have been over there, or maybe we should have done it differently. But by interfering and then leaving, we doomed our allies in-country to death.
If we had never gone, they may have not risked life and limb for a futile (without assistance while the opposing side has funding and equipment from USSR (Vietnam) / terrorist finances (Middle East).
You don't go to war and quit. That's a good way to lose the advantage and cost more blood on both sides. Imagine if we quit and tried to contain Germany or Japan in WWII. Yeah not the same situation but still.
This (radical, militarized Islam in this case, but anything causing no holds barred terrorism will fit the bill) is a threat that cannot be ignored, because it will not ignore you.
Personally, I think we should have offered aid to the Kurds and any other peaceful folks. Create a cordon of fire around them.
But now what to do with terrorism sponsors? You can't level their entire country that's barbaric. You can't just decapitate the leadership and hope for the best result that's inhumane if a despot comes to power and slaughters everyone who dares oppose him. Nation building makes it easy for radicals to paint you as foreign invaders.
Maybe we are too soft - handed. Maybe we should take a more Ronan approach.
But give them a chance to win back their independence if there is no major trouble from their sector.
That was a wild idea.
But anyways, doing nothing will not help. What gives you the idea that these people will stop if left alone? That kind of appeasement has been tried before. It never works.
Surgical strikes and Spec ops only work if your Intel is up to snuff.
If it was, we would not be in this mess, durr. :ick: because if we knew ISIL was brewing, I'm sure we would have stayed.
-
Thinking we had a moral obligation to the people of Iraq and Syria is what started this mess in the first place.
-
Maybe we should not have been involved in the first place but with the likes of ISIS rising in the power vacuum there is no option but to be involved now.
-
Maybe, but there is a difference between being invited to help in a military campaign and then leaving and staying to be part of a nation building exercise.
Given that no one had a clue what the **** to do in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, it would be pretty stupid to do that again.
I think that withdrawal was a mistake. The method of what we did over there may have been flawed, but once committed, we should have stayed.
I wasn't only talking about Iraq.
-
How about we learn from Iraq now and stop supporting the Syrian rebellion which let IS really get going in the first place?
Better the devil you know and all that. Assad is a much better option than IS, and the Syrians could do legwork in Iraq too.
-
Yes, that's the Kissinger argument. I respectfully disagree with it. I think it way more respectful to take the risk and try to be on the right side of history, rather than supporting dictators like the US has done in the Kissinger years and so on.
All this blaming the US is quite astonishing to me in regards to the Syrian situation, since it should be obviously clear to anyone here that the one who ****ed up by meddling here was Putin, not Obama. Had Putin left Assad alone, the secular opposition would have had defeated the government years ago, and something more on the lines of Lybia or Egypt would have happened. That is, not a perfect situation at all, but at least 150 thousand deaths less abhorrent.
You know, can you please leave your US hatred on the door and try to think rationally on this one? I mean, I'm not a fan of the US but come on.
-
um excuse me Aesaar is probably the biggest fan of America I know, and he's not even American
-
I don't think anyone is only blaming the West for the mess in the Middle East. The Russians (and Soviets before them) have to bear quite a bit of the blame too.
-
I'm sorry I thought I read somewhere that ISIS was a byproduct of american support of Syrian rebellion. Did I read that wrong? Let me see.
Nope. Didn't read that wrong. So there. If anyone wants to blame anyone regarding the ****stain that is Syria / Iraq right now, the ones to be pointed out should be the Russians and the Saudis, just as we blamed (correctly) the UK and the US for the ****ing messopotamia that was created since 2003. The only big influence the US has made in that area recently was to curtail the usage of chemical weapons in the region, which I would guess was a positive thing, but hey it's america so you never know.
-
Luis Dias: I said IS is a product of the Syrian rebellion. Which it is. It also happens to be a rebellion the US is supporting. The American support isn't responsible for IS except in how it let the rebellion last long enough for IS to form. The Russians are equally responsible, but there isn't really a way to stop Russian support and Russia doesn't really care about IS in the first place.
I'm not anti-American at all, but it's kinda hard to deny that the cluster**** that is Iraq is overwhelmingly due to the US deposing Saddam Hussein, completely dismantling the Ba'athist Iraqi state, and then being unable to build a new government capable of maintaining stability in the face of extremist groups. Hussein's Iraq didn't have this problem.
Syria's situation definitely can't be blamed just on the US, and yeah, if Russia hadn't been so willing to prop up Assad, the opposition would have probably won a while ago. But they did, and we need to look at the situation now, not the way it was in 2012. The secular rebels are losing. Simply put, they're not going to win unless they get massive air support from NATO, which they won't get, or they get even more weapons, which could easily end up in IS hands. If it comes down to a choice between Assad and IS (and I think it will), I'd rather have Assad. Moreover, purely by virtue of having forces committed on the ground, the Syrian army is in a better position to combat IS than any NATO state except potentially Turkey. I'm starting to think it might be a good idea to stop making that job harder than it needs to be.
I won't deny that it's quite Kissinger-ish, but tbh, I've rarely seen morality and international relations mix very well. It always seems to cause more problems than it solves. If you're accusing me of being a proponent of Realpolitik, you're not wrong at all.
-
Right, I understand. I read you saying that the IS was a product of the Syrian rebellion which was a product of the US' backing it up.
Well, Assad is better than IS. Thing is, IS is something that should definitely not be feared. It's something that will peak and then downfall rather swiftly and spectacularly. It needs only containing and isolation, their suicidal urges will not take too much time into shredding it to nothingness.
Assad will largely outlive any remnants of "ISIS", and then we will have to deal with someone who is obviously at par with Saddam, but now backed up by a regime like Russia. How's that for a realpolitik assessment of the situation?
Then there's the largely ignored (but understood) aspect of this war becoming a huge drag on the local economy for generations to come due to undoubtedly massive sums of wealth wasted on weapons. Wealth that is most probably being lent by banksters (in the Kremlin? London? Russian londoners? I have no info here) who will reap the profits for those same decades to come. War is a finantial necessity.
-
What's the long-term plan? Given the current state of the secular Syrian rebels, can we really expect them to be able to keep order in Syria if the US helps them win (assuming that's still possible)? You're right in saying IS probably won't last long, but IS is nothing special. It's just another extremist organization like the Taliban. If it wasn't them, it'd be someone else because they're a result of long-lasting instability.
So what's most conducive to stability in the region? I didn't like Hussein and I don't like Assad, but what's the alternative? The US has been down this road before.
-
The alternative? Well that's up for the Syrians to resolve. The last thing the US should do is to design the "alternative". The best thing they should do is to have a firm opinion on the choices they have, and that such opinion be somewhat realistic, but preferably, moralistic.
The best alternative I come up with is having Assad step down and promote fair elections in the country. He lied about going for this route enough times that the civil war started, so that's not possible. Russia is not interested in any of this as well. The syrian taliban are definitely not interested in secular states. So what should you do? Support the secularists all the way. To let them be thrown under the bus so that Assad can run down his tanks against ISIS is the wrong idea. Soft Power is also about giving a message to the world on what kind of politics and ideas you are willing to support and what you are willing to throw under the bus.
And I'm willing to say that if the US fails to support Assad or any other ruthless dictator like him well at least the americans will be able to live without the same shame they have of having had supported beautiful people like Pinochet, Saddam or Suharto. The conservative mindset of dealing with the devil for the sake of saving current lives has dragged the late 20th century to the moral mud that we inherit. Let's not do this mistake again. For all the horrible mismanagements, miscalculations, lies and tragedies that befell the Iraq war, at least the US did what it should have done in 91: depose the monster they themselves created, try to create a democratic political landscape (yeah I know, but at least they tried and they are not really in a worse state they were in under Saddam anyway).
-
Yes, the US tried to create a democratic political landscape in Iraq. And you know what? I actually have no moral objections whatsoever to the 2003 invasion. My objection to it, and to ongoing American support in Syria, is that I don't think it is/was in either America's interests or those of the local people. I was behind NATO intervention in Libya, and was even behind similar support in Syria. Until the government really started to win. Basically, until I no longer thought the secular Syrian opposition was capable of taking over the country and holding onto it. Now, I think all it's doing in prolonging a war that was decided a while ago. The US doesn't need to start supporting Assad, but actively working to keep that civil war going is no longer helping anyone except IS. I don't think the West's moral outrage at Assad is worth it.
As much as I'd like Assad to step down, he won't. Why would he? He didn't in 2012, he certainly won't now that he's mostly beaten the only opposition the West finds acceptable. NATO can't intervene in Syria the way it intervened in Libya for one simple reason: Syria possesses modern air defenses (sold to them by Russia, of course). Libya did not. Gaddafi could do nothing but stare impotently at at the NATO planes dropping bombs on his troops. Assad can shoot those same planes down. There's no way for NATO to overtly intervene in Syria without fighting an actual war. There's no way for NATO to provide more weapons to the secular opposition without risking those weapons falling into IS hands. There's no way the secular opposition will win without massive US/NATO support. And at this point I don't think there's a way the secular opposition can successfully hold onto the country and prevent it from going the same way Iraq has gone.
Assad stepping down and having a transition to a secular democratic government is the preferable outcome, I agree, but I don't see a way to get there from where we are now. Especially if we want that new government to be effective.
-
I don't think Assad should get the greenlight from the US to roll over what he wants. That's also a message to every dictator in the world that just so as long as they keep at bombing their own civilians they'll eventually get the world to say "ah ok, you won, we are tired of this mess, go ahead with your oppression". To deny this narrative to the end is a message in itself that is quite positive. Dictators worldwide are looking. And they are not liking the message they are getting "****, this could prolong for years and year and it's not even clear that guy will get anything in the end"
I say that's a good thing. If you think that "handing over" the country to Assad right now is something that would be preferable, well I think you are also overlooking what is to come, or at least thinking in your head that what would come about is just a return to the old status quo. Except of course, it won't, because just like his father did in the old days, the moment a truce is established and the rebellion defeated, there will be a massive bloodshed (genocide?) of every single person who has had ties with the rebels. This is why, incidentally, the rebels are still fighting: they have nothing to lose. They know it's an all out war against their own and their friends and families' lives.
-
I think the lack of overt intervention in Syria already sends a very clear message: "We won't actually attack you if you're able to hurt us back." I really doubt the current US handling of Syria is putting the fear of the USA into any dictator who actually cares. It's not particularly intimidating when you contrast it to Iraq or Libya. Rather, it makes it look like the Americans aren't willing to get their hands dirty anymore. The Ukraine situation kinda shows that too, but that's a whole other can of worms.
It isn't how I see the US actions there, but I suspect a lot of people who actually are anti-American do see it that way.
If the US is sending a message, I don't think it's for other dictators, I think it's for allies and especially Americans. They want to do something, they want to be seen doing something, because they can't do nothing. They want to be able to say "we tried to do something about this." I don't think it has a practical purpose anymore. It's become a moral exercise.
I don't think it'll go back to the status quo at all. This civil war has seriously questioned the legitimacy of his rule and it isn't something dictatorships like that survive unscathed even if they win. And let's remember that I don't really want Assad to stay, I just don't see a way to get the preferred solution of "him gone but Syria not turned into Iraq v2". And Iraq v2 is aiming pretty high if there isn't a stabilizing agent like what the US did for Iraq after the invasion. What you and I want doesn't necessarily coincide with what's possible. If we constrain ourselves to what's definitely possible, I think Assad's victory is the preferable outcome, as much as I don't like it.
As an aside, I'll add that violent revolutions tend to go through a rather bloody period after they achieve victory. Pretty sure we'd have gotten some purges even if Assad had lost last year or something.
Anyway, time for sleep
-
Well but if Assad is not going to survive for much longer, how would that happen without further bloodshed and civil war?
You might think this will not continue forever, but let me tell you, this can well continue for decades now. Angola had a civil war for 30 years. And I see no political solution whatsoever in Syria that is not a complete surrender from one side. And I don't think that either Saudi Arabia, the US or Russia are willing to back off anytime soon, let's not even dwell on the fact that some much more Hawkish US president might be in line already in 2016.
Regarding ISIS, either they are able to moderate themselves to a state between Talibanese and Iranese, or they are finished. Regardless all of that is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia going a bit out of control, and furthering establishing Islam as an ideology to be feared by westerners (I'm talking about appearances and perceptions here, not "Truth" or whatever).
-
and they are not really in a worse state they were in under Saddam anyway).
Thats debatable, at best. I think islamic dictatorship sprinkled with daily sectarian violence and suicide bombing is worse than a stable secular dictatorship. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead during this transformation.
US interventions should have stopped in Afghanistan (you cant really do much worse than Taliban, so there was nothing to lose there, they can only go up). Iraq was a mistake.
-
Perhaps. Although bear in mind that Iraq was merely in a state of frozen stagnation (in sheer poverty, with the exception of the Saddam family) and that sooner or later, the revolution would come about. And in that moment, the whole islamic sunni shia nightmare would unfold anyway.
Look at Syria, the US didn't need to place one single F16 there and look at it.
-
Thing is, IS is something that should definitely not be feared. It's something that will peak and then downfall rather swiftly and spectacularly. It needs only containing and isolation, their suicidal urges will not take too much time into shredding it to nothingness.
Thing is, IS seems to be much more effective than most in making life a suffering for everyone.
I think the solution is, make them fear for a change, more than they are afraid of their god, then bomb them to pieces.
-
I can be behind that plan.
-
One wonders about some alternate universe where a UN with actual competency and fangs is capable of kicking down the door and yelling OKAY ENOUGH OF THIS BULL**** WE'RE IN CHARGE NOW BECAUSE **** YOU.
-
The UN could be as powerful as it's members agree to be. And therein lies the problem. Certain countries with veto power profit by selling weapons. Others without veto power are actually in favor of tyranny because they themselves are tyrannical. So...
EDIT: We need a UFN.
United Free Nations. With standards for joining and standards for expulsion.
-
One wonders about some alternate universe where a UN with actual competency and fangs is capable of kicking down the door and yelling OKAY ENOUGH OF THIS BULL**** WE'RE IN CHARGE NOW BECAUSE **** YOU.
Problem is, the five permanent members of the security council are the primary reason we don't have a competent and effective UN.
-
The UN could be as powerful as it's members agree to be. And therein lies the problem. Certain countries with veto power profit by selling weapons. Others without veto power are actually in favor of tyranny because they themselves are tyrannical. So...
EDIT: We need a UFN.
United Free Nations. With standards for joining and standards for expulsion.
You know, that's what is usually called NATO.
... Yeah, I *know*. Not what you had in mind.
-
Ya isn't NATO currently limited pretty much to the US and Europe.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and all. ;)
-
"north atlantic treaty organization" that includes turkey come on.
-
The Mediterranean is connected to the North Atlantic... :nervous: