Happiest Countries in the World proves Western Ideology Works

[Namutree]

 

And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved  at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the  Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council

 

We and others intervened in Syria. Syria is what you get with intervention.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at Libya, it went from one of the worlds most successful countries, to a glorious western democracy, now everyone there are happy.

 

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of  " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change "

 

The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the  sectarian violence that now  threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments

 

Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling.

 

 

What part of what I said do you disagree with, please  in future explain what part of what I said  you don't seem to like ?

 

Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government?

The idea that the west isn't responsible for what happens after they overthrow and assassinate heads of states should particularly offend anyone capable of basic thought, it's like saying "I'm not responsible for this building collapsing, I just broke the foundations!". And they can be held responsible for the sectarian and tribal violence, because they helped take away the guy who was keeping things under control. The west shouldn't go in and "liberate" countries, when we all ****ing know it'll only make things worse. Either Libya burns in eternal fire, a guy who is just like Sisi is put in charge of things, or we get ourselves a grand new wannabe caliphate of North Africa. Also, it's not some big great secret that the west can go screwing around in third world countries, Gaddafi himself predicted that the west would eventually get on with replacing the other arab leaders after Saddam was offed, everyone already knew that, we certainly didn't need Libya to show us that.

 

 

 

I just want to focus on Libya as that is what we are discussing, I have always maintained that Libya is how the West can get involved in legitimate regime with relatively little impact around committing resources. This is not the same thing as now the West being responsible for actions or inactions of the government that follows

 

 

So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort  of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a  free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that  for maximum impact. He never  held a free and fair election in 30 years . He ruled the country through control of the army and police. So before I make my main point I fail to see how anyone can say "he was illegally removed from power " ...being a dictator who came to power through a military coup doesn't make you legitimate

 

 

When the Arab spring started and people started questioning certain governments in the Middle East Gaddafi had the choice to negotiate and address the concerns of the protestors, like the Saudis did where the king of Saudi Arabia basically gave $30 Billion dollars to transformation  projects that the protestors were asking for. But Gaddafi decided to use the full might of his army and police to crush any opposition to his dictatorial rule.

 

 

A civil war started but the military advantage was on the side of Gaddafi because he was quite prepared to use every single military resource he had. His forces surrounded the Libyan rebels in a town call Misrata and this battle was  known as the Siege of Misrata and is very significant because its why the West intervened.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata

 

Gaddafi was prepared to commit genocide against his own people  by levelling the entire town to the ground  and the UN security council voted to allow NATO to directly intervene and prevent this massacre of tens of thousands of people. NATO did end the siege through surgical air strikes but then continued to aid the rebels by destroying Gaddafi's tanks and airpower. Now you can argue they over stepped the UN mandate but my point is  " so what ". They helped remove a dictator from power and didn't need "boots on the ground". Why do we care if someone like Gaddafi is removed from power due to the efforts of his own people? The West wouldn't have been able to do this without the Libyan rebels and Gaddafi was executed by the rebels. So this wasn't some sort of assassination plot

 

Once Gaddafi was defeated the Libyan rebels didn't want the West telling them how to now run there new government because there was and still is resistance to any attempts by perceived Western "imperialism ". So the West obliged the Libyans and allowed them correctly to run Libya the way they saw fit. Its not the Wests fault that there is now  sectarian violence in Libya caused by disenfranchised tribes. This is something that the Libyans need to resolve for themselves, they are now charge of there own  destiny. Its the exact same thing that happened in Iraq where the new Iraqi government decided to not incorporate the Sunni minority in the new political dispensation

 

And if you are of the view that the West should just have not got involved  at all and the act of genocide doesn't concern you then you need to take a look at Syria and all the consequences that the protracted civil war has had. Because Syria nowadays is exactly what happens when the West isn't allowed to intervene due to the  Veto of Russia and China in the UN security council

 

So in summary the West did the right thing in removing Gaddafi from power, it can't be held responsible for the decisions or actions of the government that followed

 

First off, as I said earlier, we already know the west can take out any third world country should it put its mind to it, just because you can do that doesn't mean you should.

 

I don't recall saying he was illegally removed from power, you rule by the sword, you die by the sword, however, killing him off only hurt the nation, we should've left him be.

 

When you put a group of people in charge of something, you are as responsible as those people for what they do, just because you stepped back it doesn't change the fact that you empowered these people. You can't put incompetent people with limited power and authority in charge of bringing together a bunch of fractured people and expect miracles, you are responsible for what happens latter down the road when you start the chain reactions.

 

One quick brief genocide is better than a lengthy bloody civil war and the ensuring lengthy bloody civil wars that follow. The reason Syria is going down the way it is is that a bunch of foreigners entered the nation, Assads main opposition, ISIS, mainly consists of random people from all over the world.

 

Libyans were way better off under Gaddafi, I'm fairly sure your happiness polling would agree with me if they did surveys within the proper timeframes. You insist on forcing western style democracy on people when it clearly doesn't work for them, there are three ways you can deal with fractured tribes that work, silly western democracies aren't one of them:

1. A strong dictatorship

2. Forcing the tribes to mingle, forcing the tribes to shatter and banishing various people to various parts of the country, then doing everything possible, including forced adoption, to break tribal ties.

3. Institute a heavily decentralized government, one whose central authority has essentially no power, one that gives each group their own military, and control over their local natural resources.

 

Personally I'd prefer 1 or 3, but 2 is the only one that could possibly work if you eventually want to force things into a western democracy mold. Western democracy isn't perfect, it has several benefits, but it is crap for fractured societies, different governments are needed in different environments, western democracy isn't superior at everything, though it is suburb for casual people who just want to go about their life without doing that much of anything.

 

Also by your genocide standards Ukraine was committing genocide against Donetsk and Luhansk, initiate the nato airstrikes at once!

 

 

You are missing something important, the West never put those people in charge. The Libyan rebels existed before the West got involved and had there own leaders

 

So you need to  realize that the West had no influence on the people who managed the new Libyan government.

 

And the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long. Islamic fighters do generally flock to countries to fight jihads. But this takes time, if the West had been allowed to end Assads rule then there wouldn't have been the environment that allowed the creation of ISIS because there would be no drawn out  civil war. So that's on Russia and China as well, they are indirectly responsible for the creation of ISIS

 

And no the siege of Misrata was  not the same as the artillery attacks against Donetsk and Luhansk. Gaddafis attacks were much more indiscriminate and he didn't care about any civilian losses. I suggest you read about the Siege of Misrata to understand the difference. The attacks on Donetsk and Luhansk  weren't sieges, they allowed aid convoys to go through and there was concern about the civilian population, so the two are not the same and didn't require NATO intervention

[BruceVC]

 

So first point is Gaddafi wasn't some sort  of legitimate elected leader of Libya, he was a dictator who never had a  free and fair election once in his country, I'll repeat that  for maximum impact. He never  held a free and fair election in 30 years.

Bruce... I think you are being very careless with the use of the word "legitimate". Who exactly are entitled to declare something "legitimate". 99% of cases I see the word used, it's used to describe personal bias. I don't like leader x, therefore his rule is not legitimate.

 

By the same token, You would be dancing around the table and celebrate the Chinese armys Liberation of the poor Tibetan people from the totalitarian and completely illegimate rule of their former dictator, Dalai Lama, who was never elected by the Tibetan people.

 

Besides, the war in Libya was never about democracy. It was about payback and a settling of scores between clans. Ever wondered why the rebellion used the flag of the old king Idris as their gathering point? The "West" saw an opportunity to get rid of an old bogeyman (and only reluctantly at that) while scoring some cheap PR points. Prolonged war would hurt the oil production after all.

 

Edit to add: Main antagonists being the Qadaffis and the Senussis (because i couldn't remember the latters name from top of my head).

 

I don't understand why you and Namutree have an issue with the definition of the word " legitimate "

 

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

[Namutree]

nd the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long.

Syria has had a drawn out war because outside forces (like the west) chose to support the rebels. Had we done nothing they would have been crushed and the war would have been over almost as soon as it began. If not for the atmosphere created by intervention there would have been no civil war at all to be honest. The rebels went into the war expecting aid, and got it.

[Namutree]

I don't understand why you and Namutree have an issue with the definition of the word " legitimate "

 

 

 

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

 

I don't have a problem with the word legitimate. I have a problem with non-Libyans determining who is or isn't a legitimate leader in Libya. I wouldn't want the British to say Lincoln wasn't "legitimate" because he wasn't of royal lineage. Democracy doesn't = Legitimate. 

 

It's ironic that you mention legitimacy though. See, Gaddafi was put into power by Libyans; while these rebels owe their success to the west. So if either is to be considered legitimate; it would be Gaddafi.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Namutree

[Shallow]

You are missing something important, the West never put those people in charge. The Libyan rebels existed before the West got involved and had there own leaders

 

So you need to  realize that the West had no influence on the people who managed the new Libyan government.

 

And the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long. Islamic fighters do generally flock to countries to fight jihads. But this takes time, if the West had been allowed to end Assads rule then there wouldn't have been the environment that allowed the creation of ISIS because there would be no drawn out  civil war. So that's on Russia and China as well, they are indirectly responsible for the creation of ISIS

 

And no the siege of Misrata was  not the same as the artillery attacks against Donetsk and Luhansk. Gaddafis attacks were much more indiscriminate and he didn't care about any civilian losses. I suggest you read about the Siege of Misrata to understand the difference. The attacks on Donetsk and Luhansk  weren't sieges, they allowed aid convoys to go through and there was concern about the civilian population, so the two are not the same and didn't require NATO intervention

 

Just because someone existed before western intervention doesn't mean the west didn't put them in charge, without the west Gaddafi would've been in charge, thus the west put them in charge, it's that simple. The west had influence in that the west literally removed the last guy from the throne and gave the new guys their blessing.

 

On the flip side if Assad had been allowed to go all out and gas his citizens the Syrian war would be over as well, and if the west had been allowed to butcher Assad odds are fighting would still be going on, just like in Libya, because the various tribals and religious nuts and foreign muslims all want control. You can't just remove all infrastructure and then not expect the vultures to be vultures. Random foreigners would be even more willing to enter Syria if you completely broke the country instead of just the current status quo where other arab nations have been screwing around.

 

You need to realize that when you act, you're responsible for more than just the immediate reaction, you're responsible for the chain reaction, you can't just wreck a nation and then go "It's their fault, they should've been better at western democracy even though western democracy doesn't work under such conditions!"...

 

I expect Oby or someone will write an adequate response to the bottom portion of your post.

[BruceVC]

 

nd the reason that Syria is in such a state is not because foreigners came to Syria to fight Assad, this is just a consequence of the war being drawn out for so long.

Syria has had a drawn out war because outside forces (like the west) chose to support the rebels. Had we done nothing they would have been crushed and the war would have been over almost as soon as it began. If not for the atmosphere created by intervention there would have been no civil war at all to be honest. The rebels went into the war expecting aid, and got it.

 

 

What aid did they get ? They received some arms through a proxy county like Saudi Arabia. But they asked the West to destroy the airpower of Assad and his heavy military machinery, exactly the same as the Libya rebels asked for. The fact that Assad has access to this weaponry gives him the obvious advantage in the civil war

 

And they didn't get this help only because of the veto from Russia and China

[Gorth]

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age.

[Shallow]

 

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age.

 

Bruce has a weird western democracy fetish.

Also the US has that whole stupid whoever gets 51% of a places votes gets 100% of the people withins votes, guess the republicans were right, Obama is an illegitimate tyrant.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Shallow

[BruceVC]

 

I don't understand why you and Namutree have an issue with the definition of the word " legitimate "

 

 

 

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

 

I don't have a problem with the word legitimate. I have a problem with non-Libyans determining who is or isn't a legitimate leader in Libya. I wouldn't want the British to say Lincoln wasn't "legitimate" because he wasn't of royal lineage. Democracy doesn't = Legitimate. 

 

It's ironic that you mention legitimacy though. See, Gaddafi was put into power by Libyans; while these rebels owe their success to the west. So if either is to be considered legitimate; it would be Gaddafi.

 

 

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

[BruceVC]

 

Its quite obvious to me, you have a free and fair Democratic election and a political party and person gets voted in to govern the country. How is this not best way to say this is the best way to reflect a legitimate leader?

If you can't see it, I'm not sure I can explain it so it makes sense. Who made the decision that a leader with more than 50% backing inside a nationstate is the only "legitimate" leader? What about a leader appointed according to his countrys constitution? Italy had a PM for a while that was appointed "Senator for Life" by the President and appointed PM and a cabinet consisting of People not elected for anything (i.e. technocrats). He was never elected, yet no NATO planes swooped in and bombed Rome back to the stone age.

 

 

No I can't see it because none of those examples are the same as Libya. Gaddafi  came to power through force, there was no valid Libyan constitution under Gaddafi and the  Italians in the last 100 years have not decided to wipe out an entire Italian  town because that town wanted political transformation. So I just don't see how that post is relevant to what happened in Libya ?

[Namutree]

 

 

What aid did they get ? They received some arms through a proxy county like Saudi Arabia. But they asked the West to destroy the airpower of Assad and his heavy military machinery, exactly the same as the Libya rebels asked for. The fact that Assad has access to this weaponry gives him the obvious advantage in the civil war

 

And they didn't get this help only because of the veto from Russia and China

 

They received weapons like assault rifles, anti-tank rocket launchers, and other ammunition. CIA agents helped them develop supply routes and provided "non-lethal" aid like money. 

[Gorth]

Also the US has that whole stupid whoever gets 51% of a places votes gets 100% of the people withins votes, guess the republicans were right, Obama is an illegitimate tyrant.

I was about to mention it, but decided against it

 

The US electoral college system is not a true democracy and therefore not "legitimate". Waiting for South Africa to declare war in the US to correct that heresy

[Namutree]

 

 

 

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

 

That doesn't make him illegitimate. 

 

Democracy does not equal legitimacy.

[BruceVC]

 

Also the US has that whole stupid whoever gets 51% of a places votes gets 100% of the people withins votes, guess the republicans were right, Obama is an illegitimate tyrant.

I was about to mention it, but decided against it

 

The US electoral college system is not a true democracy and therefore not "legitimate". Waiting for South Africa to declare war in the US to correct that heresy

 

 

 

Okay I really don't have the energy or knowledge to get into a discussion around if the " USA is a real Democracy "

I just know its more of a Democracy than Libya under Gaddafi ever was

[Namutree]

 

Also the US has that whole stupid whoever gets 51% of a places votes gets 100% of the people withins votes, guess the republicans were right, Obama is an illegitimate tyrant.

I was about to mention it, but decided against it

 

The US electoral college system is not a true democracy and therefore not "legitimate". Waiting for South Africa to declare war in the US to correct that heresy

 

The US is not a democracy. We do not claim to be one, nor should we ever be one.

 

We are a Representative Republic. 

[Hiro Protagonist]

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

 

So Xi Jinping who is the President of China, who didn't come to power through the will of the people is not the legitimate president of China. Because you know he's also the Chairman of the Central Military Commission as well. Check.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

 

That doesn't make him illegitimate. 

 

Democracy does not equal legitimacy.

 

 

Okay will then we have reached an impasse and that's fine

 

I believe that if people in a country have a chance to vote in a free and fair election and the results of that election mean that the majority of votes determine what political part wins that means there is a legitimate form of government that should govern. You don't think this means that is a  legitimate way to determine who governs, what would you definition be of political legitimacy?

[BruceVC]

 

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

 

So Xi Jinping who is the President of China, who didn't come to power through the will of the people is not the legitimate president of China. Because you know he's also the Chairman of the Central Military Commission as well. Check.

 

 

No China is not a Democracy, its a one  party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party

[Hiro Protagonist]

No China is not a Democracy, its a one  party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party

 

But is he the legitimate and recognised President of China?

[BruceVC]

 

No China is not a Democracy, its a one  party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party

 

But is he the legitimate and recognised President of China?

 

 

Depends on your definition of legitimacy, if you say is he the legitimate leader  to the ruling political party then "yes"

 

But is he the legitimate ruler to the people on the street than "no" because they never voted for him. The average Chinese citizen has no say in who the ruling party nominates

[Shallow]

 

But is he the legitimate ruler to the people on the street than "no" because they never voted for him. The average Chinese citizen has no say in who the ruling party nominates

The average Chinese person has just as much influence as 49% (or 32% I guess) of the population in a standard democracy has.

[obyknven]

 

 

Once again Gaddafi came to power in a coup because he had the support of the army, he didn't come to power through the will of the people

 

So I fail to see how you say that someone who stays in power through military control is legitimate. If he had actually won an election I wouldn't be raising this criticism of this regime

 

So Xi Jinping who is the President of China, who didn't come to power through the will of the people is not the legitimate president of China. Because you know he's also the Chairman of the Central Military Commission as well. Check.

 

 

No China is not a Democracy, its a one  party state and demonstrates certain characteristics of a dictatorship. So the current president does not represent the will of the people, he represents the will of the political party

 

Don't buy Chinese trade goods then. By buying of Chinese trade goods you support dictatorship! Wait... oh shi... almost all trade goods in the world has Chinese origin... Ok don't buy any trade goods, such freeminded person as you must make such sacrifice for glory of democracy!

 

P.S. As totalitarian Russian i prefer Chinese trade goods (just because European or US goods has worse quality with higher price).

[Sarex]

By buying Chinese good, you support slavery. Slavery>Dictatorship!

[Valsuelm]

 

 

What aid did they get ? They received some arms through a proxy county like Saudi Arabia. But they asked the West to destroy the airpower of Assad and his heavy military machinery, exactly the same as the Libya rebels asked for. The fact that Assad has access to this weaponry gives him the obvious advantage in the civil war

 

And they didn't get this help only because of the veto from Russia and China

 

 

No. Russia and China's veto meant ****.

 

They didn't get the help because many of the people of the U.S. and U.K. are beyond war weary and it was deemed political suicide in the U.S. and U.K. to go into Syria (overtly as we're already there in spades covertly) as even your average dolt here and there are getting to the point they aren't buying the BS anymore. The British Parliament even voted against going into Syria for a change.

 

But of course that didn't stop them in the long run, as we now have ISIS being paraded on every major news channel daily in the push for war. The backdoor to Iran through Syria hasn't worked quite yet for the psychopaths who want war over there , but come hell or highwater they're going to continue pushing for it.