3 ms·
I like your sentiment, but it conveniently forgets the significant amount of bloodshed and instability that usually occurs when one such regime collapses. Just
by lobotryas 6y ago
I like your sentiment, but it conveniently forgets the significant amount of bloodshed and instability that usually occurs when one such regime collapses.
Just look at Libya. The West got rid of Gadaffi and the country went from stability under a dictator to fractured chaos where tourism industry is dead and slave markets have opened.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThis is the problem with pie in the sky US neoconservatism or neoliberalism. Not every has a secular civil society ready to jump in and create lasting national institutions. Then they get all hot and bothered when what replaces a dictatorship is either control by a party they don't like, mass corruption, total anarchy, or some combination of the three. See: Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, South Sudan The particularly dumb thing about Libya is that the US administration at the time was quite keen on emphasizing that they did not want to get involved initially, since the US was tired of war and the US has no major presence there. Britain and France, who loved waxing on about Iraq being an immoral war, were the primary supporters of intervention.
- BurningFrog 6y agoI'm absolutely not advocating US invasions. These petrostate governments get their power from controlling the oil wealth. If that becomes worthless, they have no power basis and serve no purpose anymore. Sure, what comes after, nobody knows. But in general, I think non-oil economies, that have to thrive of regular people working, produce much healthier governance.