Happiest Countries in the World proves Western Ideology Works

[PrimeJunta]

@Rostere I thought that too until I saw what Morsi did when he was in power. It wasn't pretty.

 

On the other hand, the AKP has been getting nastier lately as well.

[Namutree]

I'm sorry Bruce, but I too disagree with the premise of this thread. Here's why:

 

A) Happiness cannot be accurately measured.

 

B) There is no such thing as "Western Ideology". The west does NOT have a united set of values/ideals.

 

C) Happiness is not a measure that this, "Western Ideology" works. Let's say everyone is happy in the west, but it's based on deficit spending or abusing natural resources. Sure, we're happy, but such a system may not work in the long term.

[Shallow]

 

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.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

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.

 

 

Sadly, he's for real.

 

If this was a more popular forum, I'd wager a chunk that he's a government paid troll. He may still be, and just happens to like Obsidian games so moonlights here.

 

It certainly is astounding just how much he believes the BS if he actually sincerely thinks the way he does.

[Namutree]

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

[obyknven]

Sadly, he's for real.

 

If this was a more popular forum, I'd wager a chunk that he's a government paid troll. .

 

This. He begin political activity here after my appearance on this forum.

[Shallow]

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?

[Namutree]

 

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?

 

That's probably it.

[Zoraptor]

@Rostere I thought that too until I saw what Morsi did when he was in power. It wasn't pretty.

 

On the other hand, the AKP has been getting nastier lately as well.

 

Nastiness is not a defining characteristic of Salafism though, at least in the respect that all nasty (sunni) muslims are Salafi. MB, like AK, are (broadly orthodox, sunni) Islamist rather than Salafi, who many Sunnis don't even regard as actually being Sunni.

 

It's all rather complicated though, due to various Gulf States supporting different movements of differing levels of whackiness that look fairly similar from the outside. In terms of Egypt, since Qatar backs the MB the Salafi Al-Nour party (second largest after the MB's political arm, and considerably more extreme) stood aside when al-Sisi launched his coup because they're beholden to Saudi Arabia, who don't like any other arab state having influence and think Qatar are uppity. That is one of the primary reasons for all the in fighting in Syria and in Libya, as well as the rise of ISIS. Qatar actually has more Salafis by population proportion than Saudi, but basically all Salafi (AKA Wahhabi, though they don't like that term) movements are sponsored and run by Saudi either officially or through back channels because Saudi is their spiritual home.

 

Very little in the Middle East makes consistent sense from a western perspective, which is why the west keeps on stuffing up. Saudi sponsors Egypt, who then bomb a Saudi proxy militia in Libya- you look at it from the outside and just end going huh? a lot.

[Raithe]

Well I think UK Happiness is about to take a serious dive with the EU demanding we give them an extra 1.7 billion, because our economy is doing so well..  while they give France and other countries a rebate.

[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?

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

 

At times that's  an accurate observation, but also there are many people who are misinformed about certain events and topics. And when I present a different but accurate  perspective they automatically disagree because its not what they want to hear

 

For example take this thread. People don't want to know that the West offers its citizens the best quality of life compared to other systems of government. The reasons for this will vary but many people who disagree with me actually live in Western countries and currently are disillusioned with how there current governments operate, so the thought of acknowledging that Western governments are the best in the world is anathema to them. But that doesn't change the facts, and the facts are simple. The West has the happiest citizens and the governments of those countries and there ability to deliver services are directly related to this happiness. Therefore how can you not say " the Governments of the West are the best run governments in the world "

 

Maybe someone could give examples of governments that have happier citizens than the West? I asked for this several times and people despite disagreeing with me couldn't produce a single link disputing what I have said

 

J

[BruceVC]

 

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?

 

 

This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread

 

You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate "

 

I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate"

 

Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette

[Namutree]

 

 

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?

 

 

This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread

 

You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate "

 

I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate"

 

Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette

 

The problem with debating you in this instance is that you've such a minority opinion in this case that it'll be unfair. There'll be 5+ different people ready to leap at any mistakes you make, and attack your position in different ways.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Everybody here seems to disagree with Bruce. I don't know why, but a part of me is disappointed even though I too disagree with him.

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with?

 

 

This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread

 

You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate "

 

I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate"

 

Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette

 

The problem with debating you in this instance is that you've such a minority opinion in this case that it'll be unfair. There'll be 5+ different people ready to leap at any mistakes you make, and attack your position in different ways.

 

 

That's true, there is only one of me and I have limited time. So I can't respond to everyone all the time. But sometimes one response addresses several disagreements, so for example if several people  say " how can you say people in Western countries are happy with the state of government  service delivery" I can say " there is a report that the UN used to create  this benchmark of happiness and it incorporates a wide range of factors"

 

I shouldn't have to respond to each person with the same comment?

[Shallow]

 

 

 

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.

[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.

 

 

Now you have raised something I can actually respond to.

 

You have made some interesting points and I'll respond later, I am in our weekly sales meeting so I can't comment in detail at the moment

[PrimeJunta]

 

@Rostere I thought that too until I saw what Morsi did when he was in power. It wasn't pretty.

 

On the other hand, the AKP has been getting nastier lately as well.

 

Nastiness is not a defining characteristic of Salafism though, at least in the respect that all nasty (sunni) muslims are Salafi. MB, like AK, are (broadly orthodox, sunni) Islamist rather than Salafi, who many Sunnis don't even regard as actually being Sunni.

 

It's all rather complicated though, due to various Gulf States supporting different movements of differing levels of whackiness that look fairly similar from the outside. In terms of Egypt, since Qatar backs the MB the Salafi Al-Nour party (second largest after the MB's political arm, and considerably more extreme) stood aside when al-Sisi launched his coup because they're beholden to Saudi Arabia, who don't like any other arab state having influence and think Qatar are uppity. That is one of the primary reasons for all the in fighting in Syria and in Libya, as well as the rise of ISIS. Qatar actually has more Salafis by population proportion than Saudi, but basically all Salafi (AKA Wahhabi, though they don't like that term) movements are sponsored and run by Saudi either officially or through back channels because Saudi is their spiritual home.

 

Very little in the Middle East makes consistent sense from a western perspective, which is why the west keeps on stuffing up. Saudi sponsors Egypt, who then bomb a Saudi proxy militia in Libya- you look at it from the outside and just end going huh? a lot.

 

Point conceded, I was careless in using the word Salafi to describe the MB. 

 

That said: when in power, they were remarkably unwilling or unable to stop the actual salafis from making real mayhem—murder, arson, other terror attacks on secularists and non-Sunnis, and what have you. I am not certain about the reasons. The uncharitable interpretation—and the reason I characterized them as salafi—is that they, or at least the fraction in power, did this intentionally, maintaining a somewhat moderate facade while letting the guys with the bigger beards do their dirty work. The less uncharitable one is simply that they were incompetent.

 

Either way, major disappointment. I wasn't happy when Morsi got elected, but I expected him to at least try to balance the concerns of Egypt's various consituencies. Instead he let the salafis run amok while pushing hard for Islamization of the legal system. The outcome was pretty predictable—the non-Islamist factions who voted for him to oppose the Mubarak regime pick quickly defected and opened the door for the full-bore counter-revolution that they got. Now they just have a younger, healthier Mubarak who'll likely keep that miserable excuse for a system going for another 30 years.

 

Short version: you had a shot at something better but boy did you screw it up, ya Masr.

[Zoraptor]

Don't know if Al-Sisi has children, the thing that really stuffed Mubarak was that he went for a dynastic succession for his son Gamal, and a lot of the vested powers hated that.

 

The vested interests are why Morsi was in an impossible situation from the outset, the military controls a large proportion of Egypt's nominal economy and was used to running things with only oversight from (Air Force General) Mubarak, the judiciary (laughably referred to by Sisi and others as 'independent') was full of hard core Mubarak apparatchniks as were the police, and the Salafis were funded from Saudi Arabia who have banned the MB and hated Egypt being run by a Qatari client. All in all there was no way he could have run the country properly even had he wanted to, because nobody else wanted him to. It suited the military especially to have things not work, so they could step in to 'save the nation', but it also suited the police, judiciary and Saudi Arabia as well. So, nothing worked.

 

(Western politicians and media pundits love to self deceive about the extent of liberal support and the arab spring, but even when including every non salafi/ islamist seat as being liberal- including the Mubaraknics as were etc- they managed less than a third of members in either elected chamber, even though Morsi failed to get the Saddamesque 96%< Al-Sisi vote share in the presidential vote)

Edited October 24, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Gorth]

Just my $0.25... I wouldn't classify people living in "Western Ideology" countries as being happy as much as disillusioned complacency. Most western countries are nominal democracies and effectively oligarchies. Populations are best controlled and most productive if they think they are in charge, regardless of how little influence they truly have on the running of countries. Many people probably dream of doing more with their lives, hope for better QoL, fame, fortune etc. and only a miniscule minority ever achieve that. While those few live their dreams, the rest is left dreaming. The complacency stems from life being just comfortable enough to give people pause and stop and wonder if it's *really* worth the hassle trying to make things better. Might as well let somebody else speak up and catch the flak if it backfires.

[PrimeJunta]

@Zoraptor IMO the big tragedy of the Egyptian revolution is that the non-MB opposition couldn't get their act together. If they had agreed on a single candidate he would've had good odds of winning. As it was the vote was split. I would probably have held my nose and voted for Morsi as well in the second round, given the circumstances. Both of the opposition groups had their shot and blew it -- the secularists before the elections, the MB when they got into power, so here we are, with the generals back in charge.

[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

[Malcador]

That's a pretty interesting definition of genocide there.

[Shallow]

 

 

 

 

 

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!

Edited October 24, 2014 by Shallow

[Gorth]

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).

[Namutree]

 

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.

Who gave them the right to intervene? Why don't we let the people decide the fate of their own country? Why not just let Gaddafi destroy the rebels?

 

 

 

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 . 

What gives the west the right to determine what is a legitimate leader? Your lack of respect for Libya's sovereignty is disturbing.

 

 

 

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.

 

He shouldn't have used force to crush the protesters. That said, it's none of our business how Libyans conduct politics.

 

 

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.

 

Once the people the west wanted to be in control were in power. That's like if during the US civil war the British (they were pro-confederate) had supplied arms to the rebels, prevented Sherman from conducting his total war campaign, and then left after the confederates won thanks to their hypothetical intervention. That isn't letting Americans run the country as we see fit.