David Rieff: Liberals who didn't support the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are hypocrites for wanting the U.S. to help Syria at arm's length.
Comment 0
Cool
vote cool
vote uncool
Terms of Service Violation
strike inappropriate
not inappropriate
Other
sunlight
get permlink
Cool
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
Like the "help" we've given to activists in the Saudi Perversion? Give me a fucking goddamn break. Nobody but the dullest of tools buys it anymore.
Afghanistan and Iraq were areas of relative peace before we invaded, at least when compared to the current Syria.
"Interventionalists" are halfwits. Maybe less.
Liberals invade and kill for the right reasons while raising taxes but reducing the military budget.
So it's okay.
So it's okay.
The guy's gonna throw his back out reaching like that.
WTF?
No brainer:
Afghanistan: Played host and protector to a terrorist organization that attacked us and would not give them up.
Iraq: Saddam was a dipshit, but nothing that he had attempted had resulted in any damage to America or its interests. The populace was not united in an active uprising against leadership. Pretty much was the same status quo it had been for 20 years.
Libya: In the past Khaddafi had been a big sponsor of terrorism against America and other western nations. An organized rebellion from within had already started, all they needed were resources and a little support. America and allies agreed on this. Low risk/high reward ratio made this look good.
Egypt: Not too bad, not too good. Popular revolt, didn't turn into an organized massacre. Staying out was the smart move.
Syria: Always a dick and puppet for Russia, China and Iran. State sponsor of terrorism. Anti-Israel/West. Involvement of Russia/China prevents them from being 'too anti-west' and acting out on it. Totalitarian regime pretty much keeps rabid radical Islamic sentiment in check. The question is: Is suppression and control of a radical populace *worse* than a radical populace taking control THEN suppressing and controlling the existing populace THEN being a loose cannon on the international stage? No brainer there. Stay the fuck out but make Russia and China look like assholes.
I find it amazingly naive that people equate 'freedom' with peace. Just moving people out from under a tyrannical reign does not suddenly grant them all the wisdom of The Enlightenment or improve their economic situation or wipe out all their prejudices and historic grudges.
If anything, lasting change to the Islamic world will need to come from within, from an Islamic Enlightenment to rationalize the secular world with the spiritual. But before that can even happen, they need to have a softening like The Protestant Reformation that wrestles control of Islamic dogma from the arms of the Ayatollahs and other formal leaders.
No brainer:
Afghanistan: Played host and protector to a terrorist organization that attacked us and would not give them up.
Iraq: Saddam was a dipshit, but nothing that he had attempted had resulted in any damage to America or its interests. The populace was not united in an active uprising against leadership. Pretty much was the same status quo it had been for 20 years.
Libya: In the past Khaddafi had been a big sponsor of terrorism against America and other western nations. An organized rebellion from within had already started, all they needed were resources and a little support. America and allies agreed on this. Low risk/high reward ratio made this look good.
Egypt: Not too bad, not too good. Popular revolt, didn't turn into an organized massacre. Staying out was the smart move.
Syria: Always a dick and puppet for Russia, China and Iran. State sponsor of terrorism. Anti-Israel/West. Involvement of Russia/China prevents them from being 'too anti-west' and acting out on it. Totalitarian regime pretty much keeps rabid radical Islamic sentiment in check. The question is: Is suppression and control of a radical populace *worse* than a radical populace taking control THEN suppressing and controlling the existing populace THEN being a loose cannon on the international stage? No brainer there. Stay the fuck out but make Russia and China look like assholes.
I find it amazingly naive that people equate 'freedom' with peace. Just moving people out from under a tyrannical reign does not suddenly grant them all the wisdom of The Enlightenment or improve their economic situation or wipe out all their prejudices and historic grudges.
If anything, lasting change to the Islamic world will need to come from within, from an Islamic Enlightenment to rationalize the secular world with the spiritual. But before that can even happen, they need to have a softening like The Protestant Reformation that wrestles control of Islamic dogma from the arms of the Ayatollahs and other formal leaders.
zombiestomper:
If anything, lasting change to the Islamic world will need to come from within, from an Islamic Enlightenment to rationalize the secular world with the spiritual. But before that can even happen, they need to have a softening like The Protestant Reformation that wrestles control of Islamic dogma from the arms of the Ayatollahs and other formal leaders.
I agree with you here. Trying to cause change from outside is idiotic. If we must interfere, it is best to keep our people out and support an existing home grown movement for change.
If anything, lasting change to the Islamic world will need to come from within, from an Islamic Enlightenment to rationalize the secular world with the spiritual. But before that can even happen, they need to have a softening like The Protestant Reformation that wrestles control of Islamic dogma from the arms of the Ayatollahs and other formal leaders.
I agree with you here. Trying to cause change from outside is idiotic. If we must interfere, it is best to keep our people out and support an existing home grown movement for change.
If you logged in, you could post here.