3 ms·
Iraq wasn't in the state of unrest at the time of invasion, although yes, in principle Saddam was as murderous dictator as the other two. Arab spring would most
by varjag 8y ago
Iraq wasn't in the state of unrest at the time of invasion, although yes, in principle Saddam was as murderous dictator as the other two. Arab spring would most decidedly have flared up his Iraq as well.
Venezuela crisis is not anywhere on the scale of outright war in Syria and Libya. It is also well outside the reach of feasible French force projection. France however is involved in a number of conflicts elsewhere in francophone Africa, relatively low profile as the interventions have stabilizing effect.
With Libya and Syria we also had as close to A/B test in history as we get. What if we interfere in a massacre, and what if we watch from the sidelines in exchange for deal with Iran? The answer is apparently two orders of magnitude more deaths, displacement and human suffering.
- claydavisss 8y agoyour attempt to rationalize the Libya catastrophe is shameful. We selected a country and obliterated it, created something much worse as a result. Today there are flourishing slave markets in Libya. The outcomes were well known at the time of the action The views you are expressing are no longer the global consensus, even among liberal apologists. If the US truly intervened for humanitarian purposes, our interventions would look totally different. And if anyone thinks the French are moral paragons, read the history of North Africa in the 20th century History will eventually reflect that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton were just as capable of arbitrary destruction as George Bush. And for some twisted reason HN will make this comment disappear.