5 ms·

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

by eunos 5y ago

andy_ppp 5y ago
It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?
- nanis 5y ago
  In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
- test_epsilon 5y ago
  Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.
ChemSpider 5y ago
There are signs and rumors that a 3rd party (here: China) is already involved, at least in the sense of "Go ahead, we will not do anything". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relations#2021_military_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relation... Libya and Syria: Same here, some 3rd parties are involved anyway. The question is if "the West" (I guess this is what you refer to) should/must/must not get involved as well.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government. Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.
  - Der_Einzige 5y ago
    This is a huge lie. The CN government did not prefer the previous "american puppet" government at all. I don't know where this stupid meme keeps coming from but it has ZERO basis in reality...
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      The previous government was far from an American puppet and signed billions in deals with China. The Junta government opposed them at every turn and doesn't like foreign investment.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        The business apparatus understands cooperation between US-China where it makes sense during the transition.
nanis 5y ago
Are you implicitly assuming that the civil wars in Libya and Syria started without active involvement by the U.S. and other governments and they got involved afterwards?
- hulitu 5y ago
  Of course. Ever heard of CIA getting involved in something ?
baybal2 5y ago
> After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing? What 3rd party involvement? There are only 2 third parties doing anything. Russia helping Assad to flatten his own country to the ground And Turkey trying to at least deny them a complete victory by enforcing the Idlib pocket with its troops, and firepower on the ground.

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

by eunos 5y ago

After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing?

It depends, I think Syria was a half hearted involvement, I think Bosnia we did actually do some good. Anyone know why Russia and China can’t be involved/lead a UN peacekeeping effort? Why block it, dictatorships good is their only thinking?

nanis 5y ago
In Bosnia, the Clinton administration and the EU provided cover for the Serbs while pretending to do something. This provided a cause around which Jihad movements could coalesce (along with Chechnya) leading to both the "Jihad travel networks" and improvements in international resource flows to sponsor those. Later, during the Kosovo conflict, the Clinton administration bombed civilians in Belgrade and blew up passenger trains, trying to assert U.S. initiative which they had ceded to the Serbs and their patron Russia.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You know, the Balkans are in Europe, not North America. So why did Clinton have to get involved at all? Oh, because the UN and European member soldiers are afraid of casualties. Silly me. So don't criticize Clinton or the US.
- atatatat 5y ago
  To sibling: why does anyone have to get involved until it hits their borders/supply chains?
test_epsilon 5y ago
Syria was a half-hearted involvement? So sponsoring insurgencies to destabilize a sovereign country would have been good if only the government was also toppled? Iraq? The whole ISIS genocide rape torture destruction and blood letting thing was slightly inconvenient but I'm sure the people of these places will thank the enlightened noble Europeans and Americans for their gracious aid. I would suggest not continuing to fall for it. It's not that war and intervention can't ever do "some" good. It's that the people behind wars and interventions are never interested in actually helping people. It's purely for money and power.

ChemSpider 5y ago

There are signs and rumors that a 3rd party (here: China) is already involved, at least in the sense of "Go ahead, we will not do anything". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relations#2021_military_coup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Myanmar_relation... Libya and Syria: Same here, some 3rd parties are involved anyway. The question is if "the West" (I guess this is what you refer to) should/must/must not get involved as well.

sudosysgen 5y ago
China was opposed to the military junta and preferred the previous government. Their recent diplomatic stance isn't about involvement, it's them calculating that involvement isn't worth it and signaling to the junta that they shouldn't be afraid of involvement.
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  This is a huge lie. The CN government did not prefer the previous "american puppet" government at all. I don't know where this stupid meme keeps coming from but it has ZERO basis in reality...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The previous government was far from an American puppet and signed billions in deals with China. The Junta government opposed them at every turn and doesn't like foreign investment.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      The business apparatus understands cooperation between US-China where it makes sense during the transition.

nanis 5y ago

Are you implicitly assuming that the civil wars in Libya and Syria started without active involvement by the U.S. and other governments and they got involved afterwards?

hulitu 5y ago
Of course. Ever heard of CIA getting involved in something ?

baybal2 5y ago

> After Libyan and Syrian civil war do people think that 3rd party involvement is a good thing? What 3rd party involvement? There are only 2 third parties doing anything. Russia helping Assad to flatten his own country to the ground And Turkey trying to at least deny them a complete victory by enforcing the Idlib pocket with its troops, and firepower on the ground.