3 ms·
Libya didn't work out. And if the West had succeeded in Syria, the groups that would have taken control would have been much worse than Assad (though there's th
by HideousKojima 6y ago
Libya didn't work out. And if the West had succeeded in Syria, the groups that would have taken control would have been much worse than Assad (though there's the ever so tiny chance that there could have been an independent Kurdistan, so that would have been a silver lining I guess?)
- ipaddr 6y agoLook at the list I provided. There are dozens and dozens of successful cases and a handful of failed ones. The failed ones are recent which means the outcome has the potential to change in time. Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?
- FpUser 6y ago>"Would an 80% success rate over the last hundred years change your perspective?" People who live in those places rightfully do not give a flying fuck about westerner's perspective. They care about being killed, maimed, displaced, robbed of the source of income etc. etc. I can only imagine what would happen if you stood in front of them and tried to explain your stats.
- worik 6y agoI do not think the point was that the successful Western backed coups produced a good, better, or desirable result. Additionally I am not convinced that a independent Kurdistan would be a good idea. I know Abdullah Öcalan has come under the influence of Murray Bookchin, and has had some very progressive ideas about how the politics of the Middle East should be structured. But in the event of the establishment of Kurdistan there is no good reason to believe it would be any less of a dictatorship than Iran, Turkey, or Dog help us, Syria.