Skip to main content

View Diary: Assad's Redline and Obama's Greenlight! (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sorry, pls ignore prior post (0+ / 0-)

    I didn't read yours properly.

    A better question is, why would this be an imperialist intervention? What would qualify as a non-imperialist one?

    I'm not arguing for this intervention but rather, trying to understand what you think would be a worthwhile one.

    Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

    by nickrud on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 06:44:40 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe a real humanitarian intervention trying (0+ / 0-)

      to save lives from a natural disaster.    But taking sides on a civil war, like the one now in Syria, or before in Libya, because of geopolitical and/or financial interests is by definition an imperialist intervention.   In the case of these countries, it is in fact a reminder and a resurrection of the old colonialism, in a new modern version.

      •  so the alternatives are either (0+ / 0-)

        letting a society implode and murder one another or being an imperialist?

        Is there any way we could intervene in Syria that wouldn't be imperialist?

        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

        by nickrud on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 08:20:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not surprised you dont get it (0+ / 0-)

          The propaganda and brain wash by the media here is extremely effective.   Sorry, but you will have to try yourself to figure it out.

          •  Yeah, my question was a bit agressive (0+ / 0-)

            and had an extreme dichotomy. Stopping bloodshed isn't easy and expecting you to have The Right Answer in Syria is unfair.

            But I don't accept that the only international intervention that's acceptable is due to natural disasters. I don't agree that responsibility for protecting innocents ends at my nation's borders - that limitation implicitly says that genocide (to use an example that doesn't permit vacillation of just 'how bad' the situation is) is not my problem. "Hey, it's not a natural disaster so we should just stay out" doesn't sit well with me.

            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

            by nickrud on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 11:42:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course and genocide should be stopped (0+ / 0-)

              if done in a sincere way (i.e. Ruanda is an example).   The problem in the case of Syria is that we support a side (FSA/rebels) who are at least as criminal as the Assad regime and are supported with weapons by the Saudis.  We also support the Saudis and the Bahrainis and other horrendous regimes in the area.   So, arguing for intervention to stop a bloodshed in Syria is totally hypocritical.  The neoconservative policy (which Obama has been forced to continue, I believe against his will) is the one that is promoting more bloodshed there by fueling the war and supporting the Saudis and the Saudi-backed islamic fundamentalist rebels.   Any intervention would be purely based on interests, as it happened in Iraq and Libya.

              •  I think I'll have to disagree with (0+ / 0-)

                you on the FSA/rebels being 'at least as' criminal as the Assad regime - according to the UN that mish mash of interests are committing far fewer criminal acts than the regular army.

                I'm also not going to condemn them out of hand based on who they get their weapons from. I supported the Sandistas in spite of their arming by the Soviet Union, which clearly had as least as bad a record of horrendousness as the Saudis do.

                I have do doubt that there are fundamentalists in the ranks of the rebels. However, it appears that you assume that the FSA and the rebels are dominated by them. Based on everything I've read that is not the case, any more than the Egyptian, Tunisian or yes, the Lybian rebels were. I have no doubt that the majority are Islamists but that's not the same as fundamentalist.

                I guess what I'm saying is that I'm as open to supporting the lesser evil overseas as I am for voting for it here. Inaction is action and has consequences.

                Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                by nickrud on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 02:24:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How are the rebels the lesser evil? (0+ / 0-)

                  How can you conclude that?   The Assad regime is at least secular.    The rebels are at the very least very religious and more prone to an islamist country.   They have committed horrendous war crimes with decapitations and random killings of the soldiers of the Assad regime.   The only reason that the crimes of the Assad regime maybe incrementally larger is because they have more weapons and organization.    There are many clips on you tube that have documented terrible crimes by the rebels and I dont think anyone can conclude that they are better than the Assad regime.

                  You have a point though about the Sandinistas.   I supported them also, and I agree with you that the Soviet Union was a terrible monstrosity.  Still, the Soviet Union, as horrible of a regime as it was, was clearly better than the despicable theocratic Saudi regime.   Not just better, much better.

                  •  much much better? (0+ / 0-)

                    How do you measure that? My starting point is how many people they put to death. How they treated their citizens. The Saudis aren't even a pimple on Khruschev or Andropov's asses. Not even considering Stalin.

                    Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                    by nickrud on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 03:32:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well the soviet regime (0+ / 0-)

                      was terrible.   But it was not islamic fundamentalism, like Saudi Arabia or Iran.  To me religious fundamentalism is the very worst type of regime.    Again, I despise the Soviet regime, but I dont think it can be compared with Saria low, the way women are treated in the islamic fundamentalist regimes and the overall destructive capacity of religious fundamentalism.  

                      •  I have no love for fundamentalism (0+ / 0-)

                        or even religion. But I'm not going to let my despite for it color my evaluation of outcomes.

                        Yes, women are second or even third class citizens under strict Sharia, among other obaminations. But my fellow atheists instituted one of the most brutal and murderous regimes ever seen on the face of this earth in the name of the people. I'm going to keep the real fact in front of me: it's about power and its exercise. Cordoba, Rhiyad. Moscow, Oslo. Surprisingly divergent results can come from similar foundations.

                        Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                        by nickrud on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 04:11:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  As a fellow atheist, (0+ / 0-)

                          let me correct you.   It was not the atheists who instituted "one the most brutal and murderous regimes ever seen on the face of this earth".   It was one of them: Stalin.   He was the one who ultimately destroyed the Russian revolution and transformed the Soviet Union to a terrible fascist regime.   But at the very least, women were treated as equals there.   Sharia law and religious psychotic regimes like the ones in Saudi Arabia and others are more dangerous and destructive in my opinion.   They are beyond dictatorships.  They are regimes which kill driven by religious insanity.  

                          •  Lenin murdered hundreds of thousands (0+ / 0-)

                            in the short time he led that state. Soviet Russia cannot be laid at the feet of Stalin alone. Just as we can't lay the crimes of the Bush administration at Bush's feet only.

                            Treating women 'equally' is pretty weak sauce compared to how bad that equal treatment was.

                            Try to shout at the right buildings for a few months.

                            by nickrud on Sat Aug 25, 2012 at 09:54:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Lol, have you never read anything about history? (0+ / 0-)

        Were Marxists against Soviet involvement in El Salvador's civil war?  Nicaragua's?  Afghanistan's?  Vietnam's?

        Were Marxists opposed to the Cuban involvement in Angola?  (Have you ever even heard of Angola?)

        How about Che Guavara?  You do know that that particular Cuban spent the last years of his life intervening in the civil wars of other countries, right?

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:20:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site