8 ms·

Well, I would say the opposite. The West cares too much and incited too many revolutions. Remember the Arab spring? People are still burning in hell and nobody

Well, I would say the opposite. The West cares too much and incited too many revolutions. Remember the Arab spring? People are still burning in hell and nobody in the West gives a shit anymore. Sure, Gaddafi was a terrible dictator, but his death is making things much, much worse. If Assad was dead, things would become even more ugly. All the West wanted is to judge and prevail instead of solving the problems, or at least try not to screw everything. Imagine yourself as an average Syrian or Lybian person, the government is imperfect just like anyone else but life is Okayish. All of a sudden some superpowers just yell freedom in your face, then soon there's wars and bombs - your home turned into rubble, many people you were killed. It's not only painful but also confusing and not constructive at all. Nobody learned anything. That's worse, things like these doomed to happen again, in another year, on another land, and happens to some other people.

openasocket 6y ago
I wouldn't blame the West for the Arab spring though, that was an organic, local movement. NATO bears some blame for what's happening in Libya since they did side with the rebels (though I think if you want to calculate blame you should compare the current situation with what would have happened if NATO had not intervened, which still would have involved a lot of casualties). But Syria? The West's support of the rebel movements has been token at best, and actual military support has been devoted almost entirely to ISIS and ISIS-aligned fighters.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The Arab Spring was partially catalyzed by the leak of the US State Department cables to Wikileaks. I think it's fair to claim the US has some responsibility in the set of causes (there's a reason State Department correspondence is private). It turns out that while sunlight is a great disinfectant, it also sometimes starts unintended fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Tunisian_revolution_and_Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
  - openasocket 6y ago
    The cable leaks sparked outrage because the US Tunisian embassy was reporting back to the State Department the Tunisian President was corrupt and self-dealing. If the US has some responsibility for the Tunisian revolution, it's a distant 4th: behind the President of Tunisia, the people of Tunisia, and Wikileaks for leaking the cables (and I'd put Wikileaks way, way below the others)
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  The Syrian government would not have lost control of the situation if it wasn't for Western support of the insurrection, Western bombings of infrastructure, and droves of Western armaments - ATGMs especially - that enabled the survival of the insurrection, The material support was absolutely not token, at all. There are also literal US troops in Syria that are used purely to prevent the Syrian government from taking control of land in Syria. These are also in strategic places used to cut off land trading routes to Syria and cause economic pain to the government via military means, in the hopes that the government would fall. Also, the US government actually did bomb the Syrian military multiple times. So no, the US is actually at war in every single sense of the world against the Syrian government, and without the US government and it's allies there would be no civil war in Syria past a year or two of unrest. Not anywhere even near 400 000 deaths.
  - openasocket 6y ago
    I strongly disagree with your assessment that, without Western funding for the rebels the government forces would have resumed control within a couple years, for a variety of reasons. The rebels made significant territorial gains before Western involvement, and the large number of factions that emerged is a solid demonstration that Assad was unable to control the population. The usage of artillery, air strikes, and chemical attacks on civilian targets greatly strengthened the resolve of the rebels. Repeatedly refusing to take actions to improve the humanitarian situation, along with draconian treatment of rebels and suspected rebels, ensured that the population would not yield to government forces without a long and protracted fight. It should be noted the large degree of foreign involvement in this war. You've got Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militia groups working alongside the Syria government forces. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provided bases, training, and equipment to the free Syrian army. Turkey has even mounted offensives into northeast Syria. There's Kurdish forces, some funded by Kurdish nationalist elements. There's jihadist groups such as the al Nusra front and ISIL which took advantage of the power vacuum to grow in power and influence. Foreign fighters from throughout the middle east (and throughout the world) flocked to the region to join various factions. Russia has deployed troops to assist the Syrian government and is regularly striking Syrian opposition targets. And, of course, funding and training from several Western nations. None of the above was at the behest of the US, these are actions taken by different countries and groups in service of their own foreign policy goals and ideologies. It seems odd to place the blame squarely at the feet of the US when so many competing interests were involved, especially when others intervened significantly more. And things changed significantly with the emergence of ISIL, their invasion of Iraq, and numerous terrorist attacks around the world. The US was absolutely correct in providing support to Iraq and building a coalition to stop their territorial gains and mount a counter offensive. I think expecting the US to remain neutral in such a conflict is unreasonable. It was necessary to push them back into Syria, and to take steps to make sure they could not regain ground in western Syria. And while the Syrian and Russian governments might complain about this, the fact is that the region is far outside of their area of control. I think that blaming everything on the US belittles the decisions and actions or local groups, and groups around the world.
- namelosw 6y ago
  It's not just governmental foreign policies, it's about the overall mentality, of both the government and people. The parent thread I was responding written "I guess Thailand is due for a revolution". There would surely be many people trying to convince Thai people "your government is evil, go overthrow it". Maybe sometimes to an extreme like "burn the parliament and everything will get better". To be "supportive" over the Internet is almost too easy, especially if it's not someone's home country it's easier to said than done because they don't need to take consequences. Yell at your boss and you'll be at risk of losing the job, but it won't hurt to encourage foreigners to go for the rebel path.
  - simonh 6y ago
    The protests in Tunisia started because an unemployed young man burned himself to death. In Syria it was because the secret police abducted a few teenagers for making some graffiti, and tore out their fingernails. In both cases, ordinary people were fed up. These things happen in corrupt and oppressive regimes, but blaming the west is really condescending. The people over there made their own choices for their own reasons.
    - AdamN 6y ago
      +1. People can have their own revolutions without it being caused by 'the West'. That's definitely noble savage territory when people say that only the West is capable of creating the problems of the world. Of course it is true that NATO, EU, the US, Russia, and China are engaged there and are part of the landscape but that's part of strategic power plays more than Westernism.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      For a better perspective, flip the scenario around on a Western country. Black people have legitimate grievances with how they're treated by police in the US. "Ordinary people were fed up." If moves were made for a revolution to overthrow the US government, you would be ok with foreign countries' people encouraging and helping this revolution take place? After all, "The people over there made their own choices for their own reasons."
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  The Arab Spring was not an organic, local movement. It's been YEARS AND YEARS of American support for a "Westernized" style of freedom and individualism that they have promoted in that region which became that. Not saying that's the right or wrong way to live, but you have to realize that the US has been very actively promoting people to rise up against those leaders for years and years without considering that the kind of political instability they themselves face right now (in the US) could not be tolerated in countries with lesser means.
avs733 6y ago
During the Arab Spring, I was working in a different part of the Muslim world. One of the single most poignant moments of my life was when a local driver/fixed we contracted with asked me "How many people must die so that American's feel like everyone wants to live the way they do" I didn't have an answer, and at that point barely knew enough of my own country's 'real' history (despite 24 years of US education) to understand the scope of it. It wasn't instantaneous, but I can draw a clear line between that connection and the better and more knowledgeable person I am today.
jariel 6y ago
"All of a sudden some superpowers just yell freedom in your face" This is completely false. The Arab spring was not incited by the West. It was well underway long before the West was even paying close attention. In Tunisia, the West was not involved. In Libya, the West stayed away as long as they could. In Egypt, the West avoided until they were forced to pick a winner and Obama weighed in politically to 'support' a transfer of power (they were all looking to the US Pres. at that point). In Syria, the West stayed out for a a long while, an when they did get involved, it was mostly against ISIS. The grievances on the Arabs street are very real.
- TurkishPoptart 6y ago
  The Arab Spring would not have happened without Twitter, right?
  - vladTheInhaler 6y ago
    So it was Twitter's "fault" for allowing people in these countries to communicate about the injustices they were facing? And please spare me the tired comparison to the collective hallucination that the Republican party is experiencing. People in Syria and Iran were being gunned down for acts of peaceful protest.
    - TurkishPoptart 6y ago
      It's nobody's "fault"; no one said that. But without this western owned and operated platform, how would they have communicated?
  - jariel 6y ago
    It would not have happened without the Printing Press, Television, Radio, AK47s designed in Russia and Made in China, the Suez Canal or Saudi Oil either. Of all possible contentious issues with respect to the Arab Spring uprising (and there are many) - this is not one of them. It definitely was not an 'inciting' factor. Frankly, if you want to point at 'the thing' it would be Chelsea Manning's cable leaks: determined to show her own nations foibles, she did nothing of the sort, rather she exposed the vast, totalitarian corruption among Arab state leaders, which lit the match in Tunisia and then elsewhere. It was a raw, populist uprising against the 'dumb tyranny' of those systems and had predictable results in each of the nations. It was completely outside the scope of US/Western control, and by and large totally outside the foreign policy objectives of most US/Western players. Nobody really wanted it - way too much instability and risk. There were also no winners, and a bunch of losers for sure, sadly.
yrimaxi 6y ago
Do you really think that nations intervene like that out of a genuine desire to spread freedom?

openasocket 6y ago

I wouldn't blame the West for the Arab spring though, that was an organic, local movement. NATO bears some blame for what's happening in Libya since they did side with the rebels (though I think if you want to calculate blame you should compare the current situation with what would have happened if NATO had not intervened, which still would have involved a lot of casualties). But Syria? The West's support of the rebel movements has been token at best, and actual military support has been devoted almost entirely to ISIS and ISIS-aligned fighters.

shadowgovt 6y ago
The Arab Spring was partially catalyzed by the leak of the US State Department cables to Wikileaks. I think it's fair to claim the US has some responsibility in the set of causes (there's a reason State Department correspondence is private). It turns out that while sunlight is a great disinfectant, it also sometimes starts unintended fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak#Tunisian_revolution_and_Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cable...
- openasocket 6y ago
  The cable leaks sparked outrage because the US Tunisian embassy was reporting back to the State Department the Tunisian President was corrupt and self-dealing. If the US has some responsibility for the Tunisian revolution, it's a distant 4th: behind the President of Tunisia, the people of Tunisia, and Wikileaks for leaking the cables (and I'd put Wikileaks way, way below the others)
sudosysgen 6y ago
The Syrian government would not have lost control of the situation if it wasn't for Western support of the insurrection, Western bombings of infrastructure, and droves of Western armaments - ATGMs especially - that enabled the survival of the insurrection, The material support was absolutely not token, at all. There are also literal US troops in Syria that are used purely to prevent the Syrian government from taking control of land in Syria. These are also in strategic places used to cut off land trading routes to Syria and cause economic pain to the government via military means, in the hopes that the government would fall. Also, the US government actually did bomb the Syrian military multiple times. So no, the US is actually at war in every single sense of the world against the Syrian government, and without the US government and it's allies there would be no civil war in Syria past a year or two of unrest. Not anywhere even near 400 000 deaths.
- openasocket 6y ago
  I strongly disagree with your assessment that, without Western funding for the rebels the government forces would have resumed control within a couple years, for a variety of reasons. The rebels made significant territorial gains before Western involvement, and the large number of factions that emerged is a solid demonstration that Assad was unable to control the population. The usage of artillery, air strikes, and chemical attacks on civilian targets greatly strengthened the resolve of the rebels. Repeatedly refusing to take actions to improve the humanitarian situation, along with draconian treatment of rebels and suspected rebels, ensured that the population would not yield to government forces without a long and protracted fight. It should be noted the large degree of foreign involvement in this war. You've got Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militia groups working alongside the Syria government forces. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provided bases, training, and equipment to the free Syrian army. Turkey has even mounted offensives into northeast Syria. There's Kurdish forces, some funded by Kurdish nationalist elements. There's jihadist groups such as the al Nusra front and ISIL which took advantage of the power vacuum to grow in power and influence. Foreign fighters from throughout the middle east (and throughout the world) flocked to the region to join various factions. Russia has deployed troops to assist the Syrian government and is regularly striking Syrian opposition targets. And, of course, funding and training from several Western nations. None of the above was at the behest of the US, these are actions taken by different countries and groups in service of their own foreign policy goals and ideologies. It seems odd to place the blame squarely at the feet of the US when so many competing interests were involved, especially when others intervened significantly more. And things changed significantly with the emergence of ISIL, their invasion of Iraq, and numerous terrorist attacks around the world. The US was absolutely correct in providing support to Iraq and building a coalition to stop their territorial gains and mount a counter offensive. I think expecting the US to remain neutral in such a conflict is unreasonable. It was necessary to push them back into Syria, and to take steps to make sure they could not regain ground in western Syria. And while the Syrian and Russian governments might complain about this, the fact is that the region is far outside of their area of control. I think that blaming everything on the US belittles the decisions and actions or local groups, and groups around the world.
namelosw 6y ago
It's not just governmental foreign policies, it's about the overall mentality, of both the government and people. The parent thread I was responding written "I guess Thailand is due for a revolution". There would surely be many people trying to convince Thai people "your government is evil, go overthrow it". Maybe sometimes to an extreme like "burn the parliament and everything will get better". To be "supportive" over the Internet is almost too easy, especially if it's not someone's home country it's easier to said than done because they don't need to take consequences. Yell at your boss and you'll be at risk of losing the job, but it won't hurt to encourage foreigners to go for the rebel path.
- simonh 6y ago
  The protests in Tunisia started because an unemployed young man burned himself to death. In Syria it was because the secret police abducted a few teenagers for making some graffiti, and tore out their fingernails. In both cases, ordinary people were fed up. These things happen in corrupt and oppressive regimes, but blaming the west is really condescending. The people over there made their own choices for their own reasons.
  - AdamN 6y ago
    +1. People can have their own revolutions without it being caused by 'the West'. That's definitely noble savage territory when people say that only the West is capable of creating the problems of the world. Of course it is true that NATO, EU, the US, Russia, and China are engaged there and are part of the landscape but that's part of strategic power plays more than Westernism.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    For a better perspective, flip the scenario around on a Western country. Black people have legitimate grievances with how they're treated by police in the US. "Ordinary people were fed up." If moves were made for a revolution to overthrow the US government, you would be ok with foreign countries' people encouraging and helping this revolution take place? After all, "The people over there made their own choices for their own reasons."
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
The Arab Spring was not an organic, local movement. It's been YEARS AND YEARS of American support for a "Westernized" style of freedom and individualism that they have promoted in that region which became that. Not saying that's the right or wrong way to live, but you have to realize that the US has been very actively promoting people to rise up against those leaders for years and years without considering that the kind of political instability they themselves face right now (in the US) could not be tolerated in countries with lesser means.

avs733 6y ago

During the Arab Spring, I was working in a different part of the Muslim world. One of the single most poignant moments of my life was when a local driver/fixed we contracted with asked me "How many people must die so that American's feel like everyone wants to live the way they do" I didn't have an answer, and at that point barely knew enough of my own country's 'real' history (despite 24 years of US education) to understand the scope of it. It wasn't instantaneous, but I can draw a clear line between that connection and the better and more knowledgeable person I am today.

jariel 6y ago

"All of a sudden some superpowers just yell freedom in your face" This is completely false. The Arab spring was not incited by the West. It was well underway long before the West was even paying close attention. In Tunisia, the West was not involved. In Libya, the West stayed away as long as they could. In Egypt, the West avoided until they were forced to pick a winner and Obama weighed in politically to 'support' a transfer of power (they were all looking to the US Pres. at that point). In Syria, the West stayed out for a a long while, an when they did get involved, it was mostly against ISIS. The grievances on the Arabs street are very real.

TurkishPoptart 6y ago
The Arab Spring would not have happened without Twitter, right?
- vladTheInhaler 6y ago
  So it was Twitter's "fault" for allowing people in these countries to communicate about the injustices they were facing? And please spare me the tired comparison to the collective hallucination that the Republican party is experiencing. People in Syria and Iran were being gunned down for acts of peaceful protest.
  - TurkishPoptart 6y ago
    It's nobody's "fault"; no one said that. But without this western owned and operated platform, how would they have communicated?
- jariel 6y ago
  It would not have happened without the Printing Press, Television, Radio, AK47s designed in Russia and Made in China, the Suez Canal or Saudi Oil either. Of all possible contentious issues with respect to the Arab Spring uprising (and there are many) - this is not one of them. It definitely was not an 'inciting' factor. Frankly, if you want to point at 'the thing' it would be Chelsea Manning's cable leaks: determined to show her own nations foibles, she did nothing of the sort, rather she exposed the vast, totalitarian corruption among Arab state leaders, which lit the match in Tunisia and then elsewhere. It was a raw, populist uprising against the 'dumb tyranny' of those systems and had predictable results in each of the nations. It was completely outside the scope of US/Western control, and by and large totally outside the foreign policy objectives of most US/Western players. Nobody really wanted it - way too much instability and risk. There were also no winners, and a bunch of losers for sure, sadly.

yrimaxi 6y ago

Do you really think that nations intervene like that out of a genuine desire to spread freedom?