Foreigners arming an opposition in any country is an active attempt to create a civil war that will almost always be more destructive than government repression of protest. Civil war often does not result, after all of the fighting has ended, in a less repressive regime than before and at least for those who died cannot be considered worth it.
Countries that are part of the hegemonic structure the US maintains in the Middle East on Israel's behalf - Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia; pro-US factions in Lebanon and US formal NATO ally Turkey are equipping and supplying the armed opposition to the Syrian government.
While the US' colonies and allies in the region are arming the opposition, the Obama administration officially has opposed providing the opposition with weapons.
In coordinated messages, the White House and State Department said they still hope for a political solution. But faced with the daily onslaught by the Assad regime against Syrian civilians, officials dropped the administration's previous strident opposition to arming anti-regime forces. It remained unclear, though, what, if any, role the U.S. might play in providing such aid.At minimum, if the US opposed the further militarization of Syria there are many things it could have been saying and doing over the past year that it has not. Barack Obama, typically, seems more concerned with presenting an image of non-involvement than with the amount of unnecessary and avoidable deaths. What is public about the US' position, that Assad must step down as a precondition to any resolution is, by design, unacceptable to any sovereign country facing foreign-supported armed opposition and predictably leads to increased suffering of Syrians people.
"We don't want to take actions that would contribute to the further militarization of Syria because that could take the country down a dangerous path," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. "But we don't rule out additional measures if the international community should wait too long and not take the kind of action that needs to be taken."
Despite fairly transparent lies, the United States is today working to subject Syria to a civil war that it hopes, regardless of who wins in the end, will weaken the country so that it will pose less of a strategic threat to Israel. This is what was done to Iraq, most intensely after the 2003 US invasion of that country.
In Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the US under Barack Obama actively assists in maintaining governments as unrepresentative as Assad's in Syria. If Israel's viability was not the US' primary regional concern, all four of these countries could gracefully transition to representative governments. Civil war is not necessary for the US to support democracy if that was the US' objective.
The US can and should withhold and threaten to withhold military and intelligence cooperation from its colonies to increase the pressure for graceful transitions to representative government. Even if those dictatorships were to resist US pressure, the US could withdraw its support and no longer be morally complicit in their repression of their people.
But alas, the United States is the most evil nation on Earth today. The people of Syria, just as much as the people of Palestine and also the people of the US' colonies of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and others are suffering from the US' idea that an enforced majority state for fewer than six million Jewish people in Palestine outweighs the rights and even lives of over 400 million non-Jews in that region.
32 comments:
"Foreigners arming an opposition in any country is an active attempt to create a civil war that will almost always be more destructive than government repression of protest."
It could be equally argued that arms send to opposition groups could hinder the forces committing the most human rights violations.
Either way the arms that are likely being sent to syrian opposition are minor in comparison to the arms being sent to the syrian government by russia.
The same syrian government which is responsible for mass human rights abuses according to human rights groups.
"Countries that are part of the hegemonic structure the US maintains in the Middle East"
The us does not maintain these government, they are there for they are there, as in if the us was to cut off relations with them they would remain.
It should also be noted that the majority of arabs in the region do support the uprising, they see it as a popular movement against an oppressive government and they their sympathy lies with the protesters.
"While the US' colonies"
Such nations are not colonies, i suspect that you yourself recognise your error but you have used the phrase so much and dug yourself into such a hole you feel that you cannot back out without losing face.
" Barack Obama, typically, seems more concerned with presenting an image of non-involvement than with the amount of unnecessary and avoidable deaths."
Actually if things went obamas way, as in if assad stepped down and allowed free elections the number of deaths would be at its lowest.
"that Assad must step down as a precondition to any resolution is, by design, unacceptable to any sovereign country "
Its no more wrong than any other non-elected leader stepping down and allowing for elections.
"Despite fairly transparent lies, the United States is today working to subject Syria to a civil war that it hopes"
Hardly, if things went the way obama wishes assad would step down and elections could take place, sadly this is not occurring. The civil war that is occurring is primarily the fault of assad. Failing to mention this is a serious error.
"In Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the US under Barack Obama actively assists in maintaining governments as unrepresentative as Assad's in Syria."
Assads government is about on par with sa but more oppressive than the other three, also the reason why assad is coming under pressure is due to his governments violent measures against its civilian population, the other nations are not committing the same level of abuse.
"The US can and should withhold and threaten to withhold military and intelligence cooperation from its colonies to increase the pressure for graceful transitions to representative government. "
I think the us should attempt to take measure like this also however it is unlikely to make that much of an impression, other oppressive governments get on quite fine without us aid.
It is also hypocritical of you to take this position considering you are against measures and calls for assad to step aside even though he is indeed worse.
"But alas, the United States is the most evil nation on Earth today."
(rolls eyes)
Arnold i already showed your entire thesis to be flawed after you foolishly showed me a post where you presented it, by continuing to post such things you are coming across as an individual who buries his in the sand when he comes across something he doesnt like and goes into denial pretending it didnt happen.
You are also not in a position to make this argument, because syria has a certain hostile view towards israel you do not want its ruler to step down, it is literally you who is willing to allow a people to have an non-elected ruler oppress them because of israel.
It really is true that people sometimes project their faults onto others or things.
Its just rare to see such a blunt example.
If wishes were fishes ...
One of my favorite comments that I've ever read in this blog was once by Lidia who wrote something like "If my grandmother had a penis, she'd be my grandfather." I think that was a Russian folk saying.
This brings up a topic I've been seeing increasingly in Middle East related contexts.
If Barack Obama had his way, Bashar Assad would step down and deaths in Syria would be minimized.
If Israel retreated to the 1967 borders and accepted other conditions, it would be accepted in the Middle East, even if its neighbors were controlled by representative governments.
I just want to point out that this conditional morality is invalid.
If Belgium's King Leopold had his way, the Congo would have produced massive and maximal profits for himself and his country without any need for anyone to die.
If Charles Manson had his way he would have been seen by the world as a great man and gotten all of the approval and adulation he wanted, also who nobody losing their life.
I cannot read anther person's mind or heart, but for all I know, all of these statements are valid. I'm absolutely sure Obama wishes Assad would step down. But what happens when the condition of this conditional morality is not met?
If the answer is that Obama's administration supports an armed insurrection that can easily be predicted to cost at least thousands of lives, then Obama gets no credit for how few lives would be lost in his preferred alternative reality. If countries that Obama have leverage over indicate that they plan to support an armed insurrection and Obama does not oppose that plan - which is the very most charitable explanation possible of Obama's actual behavior with respect to Syria - then again, regardless of how Obama would wish Assad would behave, he could have saved Syrian lives and chose not to in favor of another regional agenda.
What if Israel does not retreat to the 1967 borders, as it has not and constantly claims it will not?
Again, in that case the contention that democracies in what are now the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, UAE and others could exist in harmony with this hypothetical Israel is of no relevance. While in the real world, the US continues to support a colonial structure on Israel's behalf.
And no, there is no moral credit for how great things would possibly be if things were different. I'm not calling my grandmother "grandpa" just because it was possible for her to have been a boy instead.
Arnold, I am glad you liked my quotation :)
1) About Bahrain dead - there are some first-hand reports from there
http://www.zcommunications.org/police-chief-timoney-meet-bahraini-mothers-by-medea-benjamin
It should be noted that the repression (deadly) of unarmed protesters in Bahrain are supervised now by two cops - one from USA and one from UK. Both have more then dubious records, even by dubious standards of those states.
2) About Syria - Juan Cole is NOT sorry for helping to turn Libya into killing fields for NATO and its local lackeys. Now he wants to "save" Syrians.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/save-homs-with-humanitarian-airdrops-by-drones.html
Note please that Cole cites Misrata as a good example - the same Misrata which now is under MANY militias rule, with ethnic cleansing of Blacks, torture and other nice thing abundant. Cole sure does not mind the same fate for Homs - as a matter of fact, Homs IS full of sectarian murders by the same "youth revolutionaries" he praises. And, as a source he cited al-Sharq al-Awsat - a Saudi-founded rag - who is better to help "revolution" in Syria than the butchers of Bahrain protesters?
I am NOT able to remember Cole calling for help for Sirte, air-bombed without stop for weeks,besieged and cut out of the world. of course, Sirte was bombed by NATO.
"About Syria - Juan Cole is NOT sorry for helping to turn Libya into killing fields for NATO and its local lackeys."
Why should cole form an apology. A recent poll by Oxford Research International. has shown that most libyans see their lives as being better now and that the revolution to overthrow gaddafi was right. If you had your way gaddafi would still be in power, a fate most libyans see as being negative.
Lidia do you think assad should step down, even without his mass human rights abuses against civilians he was an oppressive dictator. Surely such a move is right.
"
One of my favorite comments that I've ever read in this blog was once by Lidia who wrote something like "If my grandmother had a penis, she'd be my grandfather." I think that was a Russian folk saying."
My favorite lidia moment was when she accidentally posted an oxfam survey which supported my side of the argument, also the time she misspelled sadat but then went on to accuse others of misreading her post.
"If Barack Obama had his way, Bashar Assad would step down and deaths in Syria would be minimized."
Its true, and unlike the other examples it is reasonable, assad should indeed step down for numerous reasons.
"I cannot read anther person's mind or heart"
I could be wrong but i do believe that you have stated previously that certain individuals have thought this or thought that.
"I'm absolutely sure Obama wishes Assad would step down. But what happens when the condition of this conditional morality is not met?"
If assad does not do the right thing violence will continue, all other factors are secondary, he is the one person who can do the most to stop this violence.
Again i believe i asked this to you before, dont you think assad should step down and that russia and china should stop supporting him? I mean even without the violence he is one of the worst rulers in terms of oppression in the middle east, that alone should be enough for you to wish to see him go in the same way you wish the others in the region to go?
"If the answer is that Obama's administration supports an armed insurrection that can easily be predicted to cost at least thousands of lives"
But has obama started to support it? Its debatable, secondly its debatable whether or not such an action would overall cost lives, you are ( surprise surprise) making a presumption that it will, but it could equally not, one really has to sit on the fence on this issue.
You seem very hostile by one side receiving arms but the otherside responsible for mass human rights abuses gets even greater amounts of aid from russia, far from criticizing russia in this entire scenario you have been quite complimentary to it.
"What if Israel does not retreat to the 1967 borders, as it has not and constantly claims it will not?"
Well as we can see violence will likely continue, all the more reason that pressure should be put on israel to comply with un resolutions and for the palestinians to also go along with the two state solution.
"Again, in that case the contention that democracies in what are now the US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, UAE and others could exist in harmony with this hypothetical Israel is of no relevance"
I believe the views of arabs are important and do hold relevance.
"While in the real world, the US continues to support a colonial structure on Israel's behalf."
In the real world this is not occurring, again what occurs in the real world and what you believe are two different things, surely when i showed how wrong your statement was in regards to the syrian protests who paused for a moment and questioned how accurate your views were?
"And no, there is no moral credit for how great things would possibly be if things were different."
There is moral credit advocating for a moral position, there is no moral credit for people such as yourself advocating and supporting a scenario which causes excess distress, but of course this is of no surprise, you admitted yourself that you would support a scenario that would cause excess distress over one that would cause less before.
Again if you feel that oppression for arabs is wrong one would expect you to be highly critical of assad even without his mass human rights abuses against civilians, you would have written a post pointing out the findings of various human rights abuses. Instead you waste your time showing us the views of a 9 11 conspiracy theorist.
The factors under Barack Obama's control are not secondary in evaluating Barack Obama's morality. The factors that Barack Obama can influence are the only relevant factors in evaluating his morality as an actor.
This is another of those points where there's no reasonable disagreement, you're not really disputing this though you drown your agreement under a lot of misdirection.
Actions or failure to act that, like Obama's, in the real world can be expected to cost thousands of lives render a negative moral judgment against him.
I just wonder what arnolds position would be if assad was supported by the us in the same way he is supported by russia, just imagine it.
Syria is a us ally, it is highly oppressive to its own people, when protests happen the syrian government uses mass violence against its own civilian population. The us during these troubles continues to give syria large amounts of arms as well as striking down un resolutions condemning these abusive actions.
Would arnold be referring to the us as the hero in 2012 for doing such things in the same way he referred to russia and china as heroes, i doubt it.
The factors under Obamas control are indeed secondary when it comes to preventing violence in syria, the primary factor that can help end this is for assad to step aside and allow for elections.
In regards to morality, it is always moral to approve of the action which will cost the least lives, obama is supporting such an action, you are not.
"Actions or failure to act that, like Obama's, in the real world can be expected to cost thousands of lives"
It depends on the action, some may cost lives, others may save lives.
"render a negative moral judgment against him. "
Again a negative judgement can be passed on those advocating a scenario which will cost excess lives, in this regards i am putting a negative judgement on you for supporting or appearing to support ( hard to tell because you didnt answer my question) an option which will cost lives, assad staying in power and not stepping down to hold free elections.
Again surely even without the mass violence you would advocate assad stepping down. He does oppress people after all? Please dont dodge.
As in the title, fewer lost lives in Bahrain, not because on dictator is more willing to give up power, but because there is no foreign-supported (with Obama's tolerance and possibly outright coordination by his administration) armed opposition.
There could be Bahrain-levels of death in Syria. Too much but far better than what we see.
Obama is guilty of, and you support Obama, in at least failing to oppose vastly greater amounts of death.
Let's reverse it. Russia's allies and clients, possibly in coordination with Russia but at least with no even verbal opposition from Russia, is arming resistance to the Saudi monarchy.
If by vetoing a resolution against Saudi Arabia, the US manages to prevent the civil war that would have resulted from the Russian program, then the US is a hero.
In that scenario, the US will have saved thousands of lives.
Of course I would support that action by the US.
It's only because you're both blinded by your agenda and not very smart that you don't realize this has been my position all along.
Further, while the US could be heroic in that contrived scenario by preventing a civil war, the US can and does not in real life, simply withdraw its active support for the Saudi dictatorship. For example no training and equipping a new force of 30,000 troops.
In real life, the US is complicit in the oppression of over 25 million people in Saudi Arabia.
Iran would be more moral than it is now to cut all support for Syria unless Syria gracefully transitions to a democratic government, especially if Iran helps Syria ensure that the US is unable to subvert that democracy as it did in Iran in 1953 and tried in Palestine/Gaza in 2006.
But Iran doesn't have to do that to be more moral than the US today. All it has to do for that is oppose civil war.
Dermot, you're not going to understand this post. I've written this before and you didn't understand then. I wish I had smarter commenters who disagree with me.
" If by vetoing a resolution against Saudi Arabia, the US manages to prevent the civil war that would have resulted from the Russian program, then the US is a hero."
Actually if the situation was like syria such an action would not have prevented a civil war. It didnt work in syria, it would have not worked in this scenario if they were actually were the same.
"In that scenario, the US will have saved thousands of lives"
Again if the us vetoed a resolution like the one rejected by russia recently thousands of lives would not have been saved. The previous resolution would not have implemented any measures which would have done such a thing.
"It's only because you're both blinded by your agenda"
What agenda is this?
"and not very smart"
Ha.
"the US can and does not in real life, simply withdraw its active support for the Saudi dictatorship."
Hang on one moment, you are for the us behaving like russia (supporting syria) if sa was behaving like syria, but then you turn around and claim that in the current and actual scenario the us should not behave as russia does by cutting off support.
This is an irrational position, one would if anything expect a country such as the us or russia to behave far harsher when they are committing syrias current actions.
"In real life, the US is complicit in the oppression of over 25 million people in Saudi Arabia."
Yet in your scenario if the sa government was being even worse to its people and the us behaved as russia did you would find this acceptable.
Also by this logic russia is complicit in the oppression of the syrian people today, yet you consider russia to be a possible hero for its actions and have not called on russia to drop its support of assad.
" All it has to do for that is oppose civil war."
It can do that by telling assad he should step down.
"Dermot, you're not going to understand this post. I've written this before and you didn't understand then. I wish I had smarter commenters who disagree with me. "
Youve written a bit about syria and if has been incredibly weak and flawed, this piece is no exception.
Again no are in no position to judge others when you wrote that comment about syrias protesters and assads treatment of them. That comment truly showed that you have no idea what you are on about when it comes to the issue at hand.
The reason for the greater amounts of death is due to the syrian government being much more violent to its citizens. The available evidence also showed that it is a more oppressive government.
"Obama is guilty of, and you support Obama, in at least failing to oppose vastly greater amounts of death."
Assad is guilty of the abuses that has occurred in syria, these can end if he stood down but he refuses, This is the main cause of violence and this is what you support.
Again arnold you are not reliable when it comes the issue, you simply have simplistic bimboesque views, how else can one explain this comment that you made
" "I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably. "
Only someone detached from reality and completely poorly informed could make such a statement.
The same type of person who thinks that the death figure which in its thousands would only be in the dozens if a certain person didnt tolerate an action which you believe he tolerates when such an action has little or no effect for the weapons in syria come from syrias own arm depots which anti-assad forces have gotten access to.
Hang on one moment, you are for the us behaving like russia (supporting syria) if sa was behaving like syria, but then you turn around and claim that in the current and actual scenario the us should not behave as russia does by cutting off support.
You missed the comparisons. You don't understand which things I'm saying are better than which other things. I'm pretty sure this is just a case of you not being able to understand what I write, it's the second time I wrote it and I feel like this was just as clear.
No kind or amount of arguing is going to make you smarter than you are. I invite you to reread the previous post more slowly and carefully and maybe show it to someone you trust and ask them to explain.
Reread the post I wrote in response to when you posted a link to the video of protesters being shot in Syria, then reread the previous post. When you understand what really should be an uncontroversial set of assertions comparing the moralities of three different situations I'm pretty sure you'll agree with those assertions.
Also "if" and "then". You're acting as if you don't understand how they work:
Me: If the author this piece is right that Russia and China averted a civil war then they are heroes.
DM: You called Russia a hero. Would you say that for the US if it was reversed?
Me: Yes. If it was reversed, and the US averted a civil war then the US would be a hero.
DM: But Russia didn't avert a civil war. And that author somewhere else questioned 9/11.
If you can't understand the English language, there's nothing I can do for you.
Read it all more slowly. You think you disagree with me but you don't.
Arnold im sorry that you got tangled up in your own mess and that it probably is infuriating you.
But your foolishness in this situation is not my fault so there is no need to project your faults onto me.
You are trying to defend russias role in the matter and claimed that if the us did something similar you again would support it.
But then you highlight something that the us is doing now which is far more minor than what russia is doing now and what the us did in your alternative scenario. You then go on to criticise it.
This is a very hypocritical action.
Ill try to break it down further for you.
You said that the alternative us actions defending sa was right when sa was doing something highly oppressive.
You then turned around and said that actual us supportive of sa when it is engaging in far lesser actions in terms of aggression is wrong.
Logic would dictate that if only one of them is wrong it would be the us supporting the sa when it was engaging in syria style actions. Geddit.
"
I invite you to reread the previous post more slowly and carefully and maybe show it to someone you trust and ask them to explain."
I recommend you do the same, if you did this previously you might have understood what was written in plain english in regards to carter and the nyt.
You would not have made that obvious mistake.
"Reread the post I wrote in response to when you posted a link to the video of protesters being shot in Syria"
I recall posting that link, after you claimed that you have seen no evidence that assad forces had not, from what youve seen, been treating the protesters reasonably.
That is something that cannot be let to slide, it truly is one of the most foolish things written about the situation, after months of reports from human rights groups stating otherwise. All of this flying over your head and no doubt leaving a parting in your hair.
The fact that you have not apologized for getting something so wrong speaks volumes.
As for rereading it, i did, i would in turn advise you to reread my response which again highlights the flaws in your argument.
" Yes. If it was reversed, and the US averted a civil war then the US would be a hero."
My response to this that you even wrote down demolishes your claim quite nicely.
Russia prevented a civil war (rolls eyes)
"If you can't understand the English language, there's nothing I can do for you."
Oh, i can understand it quite nicely, you on the other-hand.....
"You think you disagree with me but you don't."
Ridiculous, you cant debate without having holes shot into your theories so now you opt for the entire " oh you actually have my view but you dont know it"
Pfft!
I believe assad is the primary cause of the problems in syria, the best option to save lives would be for him to step aside.
Russia did not do anything to prevent a civil war, it merely gave him cover for his actions while giving him mass aid and support, russia is wrong to do this.
Your claim that the violence in syria would only be at bahrains level if obama didnt, in your view, tolerate arms being sent to the rebels is so far fetched that id be embarrassed to jokingly say it in public.
The reason why violence is worse is due to assads mass human rights abuses against civilians, something that you were so clueless about you thought that
"I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably."
Again i repeat you are willing to allow an oppressive ruler remain in power just because he has a hostile stance towards israel, you are no better than those which you claim support oppressive governments to stay in power for they are for israel.
Just the other-side of the coin :/
I recommend you do the same, if you did this previously you might have
understood what was written in plain english in regards to carter and
the nyt.
On this, three people agreed with my interpretation of the statement. None agreed with yours.
Maybe you're just stupid.
Dear Arnold
2 statements come to mind when reading Dermots posts:
The first:There are none so blind as those who will not seeThe second:If you wrestle with a pig,you get covered in mudI admire your tenacity Arnold when it comes to dealing with the Dermots of the world,but surely even you must be willing to draw the line between ignorance and stupidity??
The ONLY result of the poll which has something with "better" for Libyans was such "
It finds that the Libyan population is largely optimistic about the future with up to 8 out of 10 people expecting improvements in their personal lives, economic circumstances and their country" - so they are NOT better of, or at least believe to be. They EXPECT to be. Given the nice result of NATO bombing and armed bands shelling, I suppose this mean Libyan are NOT so prosperous just now, but still are naive enough to hope for something better than today NOT so bright reality.
Another interesting result is such - the same quantity -
81 percent -see as
The most trusted institution - Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC). Given that NO ONE (at least officially) knows who are the guys exactly (I wonder why?), it is a great faith :) More important, a lot of people, including Western supporters of NATO bombing, admit that the most trusted NTC is NOT controlling the armed bands murdering and torturing whom they please. In short, it seems that Libyans (if one could trust the poll) are a bit naive, to put it mildly.
Regarding Assad as a dictator - one more time DM shows that Arnold is right calling DM not too smart - USA JUST NOW support a lot of oppressive dictators in the ME, and NOT ask them to step down, more than that, USA arm them while they are oppress their people, praise them and TOGETHER with them demand that Assad step down. So much for "oppressive dictator" argument by DM :( Arnold, by the way, was also right to point, that if Obama really was against dictators, NOT against Syria an obstacle for Zionist colonialism, USA would NOT need to stir civil war with foreign support in all those states ruled by USA puppet dictators. USA could simply say - step down, or we stop support you against your own people, and it would be enough. But Obama or every other USA president is NOT going to say it. They would support (and, if needed, to use arms) to keep the majority of the ME states NOT a danger for Zionist colonization of Palestine. The arming of Syria fanatic sectarian rebels (and non-Syrian ones) by USA is NOT because USA are against dictators, but because Assad is NOT a Zionist lackey.
OK, I am a bit tired :) My next post, after some rest, will be why 2+2=4 :)
"On this, three people agreed with my interpretation of the statement. None agreed with yours."
"Maybe you're just stupid."
Projecting your faults onto me ;)
Lets just oncemore look at your brilliant insight into syria.
What three people?
Again arnold its very clear what was written, you completely and embarrassingly messed it up even though it was in plain english.
Wise up.
Sineva if you have a problem with my views please provide a counter argument with some evidence instead of attacking with petty insults. Otherwise the sinevas of the world can have their posts defeated with the simple response of "grow up"
I wish I had smarter commenters who disagree with me, but I don't wish I had no commenters who disagree with me.
Dermot is providing a useful service to this blog. Not doing as good a job as I'd wish, but also probably doing the best he can.
I said several times that DM is not good in reading. Now it seems that he is not good in reading even HIS own posts :(
First he posted
"assad should step down, even without his mass human rights abuses against civilians he was an oppressive dictator. Surely such a move is right."
Then, when I pointed to USA supporting other dictators his answer was:
""USA JUST NOW support a lot of oppressive dictators in the ME"Did i claim otherwise?"and NOT ask them to step down, more than that"The reason why they have "NOT" done is due to the fact that none of them are committing the same level of abuses as assad, that is why they are asking him to step aside, because of the level of violence against his people, none of the other governments are behaving in such a way."
I am sorry for copy-pasting, but I cannot see another way to show it. So, for DM dictators are NOT so bad as such, but Assad is still bad as such. What a logic!
Now about happy Libyans. When I found a link to something like official website of the poll on Libya,
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/120215.html which I cited,
they were NOT enthusiastic about the results. One could see it for oneself. I was a bit taken aback - after all, if
"Libyan population is largely optimistic about the future with up to 8 out of 10 people expecting improvements in their personal lives, economic circumstances and their country" , what does it matter if
"16 per cent of those surveyed said they were ready to resort to for political ends. This would mean that around 630,000 people were potential fighters, in addition to the 280,000 who previously took up arms" and if
"in five years’ time 35 per cent would still like a strong leader or leaders for the country. Only 29 per cent of those surveyed said they would prefer to live in a democracy"?
Anyway, when I read the link provided by DM, I was astonished even more. NOT up to 80%, but full 93% "think their lives will improve over the coming year" - it seems that the Libyans who are pessimistic could simple be seen in borders of statistical error. I am not sure why the difference between the numbers, but it seems to me that Libyans are the most happy people in the world - I doubt very much that in any other place 75% of polled would say their lives are better than a year before.
Somehow, such great happiness could be a reason why the authors of the press-release, the link I have found sound NOT as happy as their subjects :)
I also find something interesting about the
Oxford Research International. They did poll like this in Iraq - in 2004. see here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
It seems that optimism of polled is a signature of this pollsters
"An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war in Iraq began about a year ago.The survey, carried out for the BBC and other broadcasters, also suggests many are optimistic about the next 12 months and opposed to violence."I suppose such results are enough for DM to rethink his sure unfounded opinion about USA colonial war against Iraq was somehow NOT great as a colonial war against Afghanistan. After all, DM believes in happy Libyans, why not in happy Iraqis?
Arnold please answer my question, what three people are you referring to?
What three people at the time agreed with your "interpretation" of the piece.
Also arnold i repeat that you are in no position to insult others, you are the one who has gotten things wrong time and time again.
Once more i shall point this out " "I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably."
Simply moronic arnold.
Ill stop bringing this up if you apologise for saying something so foolish.
This genuinely is a very foolish thing to state, you have also attempted to try to find flaws in my views but have failed time and time again.
After failing you tend to scurry along, such as when i showed your entire thesis to be flawed, it was your thesis and it was completely dismissed and you couldnt even properly defend it.
"I doubt very much that in any other place 75% of polled would say their lives are better than a year before. "
Not many other places had a dictatorship ruling their country over thrown.
Look lidia the sign of a good person is to admit when they have made a mistake when the evidence shows that they are wrong, you made a mistake when you claimed that the poll did not show that most libyans think their lives are better, it does, just admit your error. I used to let these things slide but now i dont think such a thing is the right thing to do. Some people have to admit to their mistakes so they will learn not to do it in the future.
"I suppose such results are enough for DM to rethink his sure unfounded opinion about USA colonial war against Iraq was somehow NOT great as a colonial war against Afghanistan. "
Lidia, this is very simple yet it seems to float over your head, when one is looking at opinion polls one looks at the most recent to see what the people believe or think, if you bothered to look at the most recent iraqi opinion polls ( as in one not from 2004) you will find that most iraqis do think things are worse now than they were and that the war was not worth it.
Both zogby and d3 found this, at the beginning ( 2003-2004) of the war iraqis felt differently but the mood changed as violence got worse.
To say my view is unfounded when their is actual evidence supporting it is wrong and you should apologise for being wrong.
"After all, DM believes in happy Libyans, why not in happy Iraqis?"
Because the most recent evidence does not support such a claim, this would be apparent to you but because you do not possess the sound state of mind to form a proper analysis of the situation you failed to see this.
What i mean by this is that most people will look at things in a balanced way, whereas you looked at things in a ideological and biased fashion, people who do such a thing will not analyse information properly, if they see something that they think supports their view they dont judge or assess it correctly or even try to find flaws with it.
Here is a good example, you found a 2004 poll, it would have dawned on a regular person to try to find and present a more up to date one but it seems not to have dawned on you :/
Again the evidence shows that most libyans feel things are better now, just as the evidence shows most afghans think things are better now, this is why i feel the interventions where right. If things went differently and you had your way things would have been worse for them, that is why you are a morally bad person.
In iraq the most recent evidence shows that things are worse, because of this i feel that the intervention should not have taken place.
This is simple sound logic but you seem to have difficulty grasping it.
Lidia it is you that has been shown to be very poor at reading your own pieces and sources in general, this was shown when you presented a source which supported my side of the argument, it was again shown when you thought you wrote the name saddat when you actually wrote the name saddam, it was here that i believe you first started accusing me of being unable to read correctly when (embarrassingly) in fact you were the one who made the error.
Surely for once you could act like a mature person and admit that you made an error?
"but I cannot see another way to show it. So, for DM dictators are NOT so bad as such, but Assad is still bad as such. What a logic!"
Lidia, maybe in other aspects of life you are a bright good person, but in regards to this issue you are highly dim ( and also immoral), the piece here is completely sound and rational yet you seem to think that it is not.
I never said that the dictators were not bad, this is a simple lie on your part, they are bad.
However assad ( with your nations immoral help) is doing things far worse than any of the others, therefore one would rationally expect that a harsher line would be taken with assad ( as in asking him to step down)
DM is NOT being logical (as usual) . THE SAME polling firm he trusts about happy Libyans exactly a year after the beginning of "revolution", published a poll about happy Iraqis exactly a year after the USA colonial war against Iraq (aka "liberation").
DM claims NOW, that Iraq is not so happy, so the war was not good. BUT by the polling firm he trusts, Iraqis WERE happy in 2004!
I see only 2 possibilities
1) The polling firm is a b...s... factory, both its polls are non-relevant
2) The polling firm is a good polling firm, both its polls are true ones
1) DM should change his opinion regrading Libya or at least stop claiming it was a good bombing and wait at least the same time he waited before deciding that Iraqis were mass-murdering and Iraq ruined by USA colonial war was NOT a right thing to do.
2) DM should change his opinion about Iraq and decide it was, after all, a right thing to bomb them, just as Obama changed his mind.
Of course, there is another option - to look into facts and call spade a spade, and NATO rape of Libya - a rape, all 93% optimistic Libyan polls notwithstanding. But DM is unable to do it.
PS. Some headlines from MY source about Iraq in 2004 (the year of "happy Iraqis" by the pollster)
UN endorses US plans for an unelected Iraqi government
Australian investigation into Iraqi WMDHoward government exonerated despite proof of lies
Who benefits from the Karbala and Baghdad bombings?
Iraqis tortured and killed by British troops
Iraq’s illegitimate interim constitution
Iraqi journalists protest US killing of two Al Arabiya reporters
Former terrorism aide charges Bush manufactured case for Iraq war
Slain Irish soldier’s mother condemns Iraq war
And so on - form less than one month (the same month as the happy Iraqis poll). I am not sure that DM has read this poll back then. I have not, as far as I know. But it seems my only info was a bit more good that the pollsters' :) I wonder, how much time DM spend before deciding that, after all, Iraq bombing by USA was NOT so good?
DM :"Not many other places had a dictatorship ruling their country over thrown". Yes, NOT many. Iraq, though was one of this places in 2004, was it NOT? So, the poll about happy and hopeful Iraqis was right, then? And USA colonial war against Iraq was(?) OK, then?
One MORE time, slow, for DM specially!
1) DM: Assad is no good even without mass murder, he should be removed because he is a dictator
2) DM: PRO-USA dictators should NOT be removed, because they are NOT mass-murdering (or murdering less)
if there is a logic, I am the GWBush-jr (a joke).
I am afraid Arnold is right, as usual. One could not demand too much (like logic) from DM. But I admit that I do not possess the saint's patience of Arnold :) I could not suffer DM in large doses and have to ignore the majority of his sincere (no doubt) efforts to made me a better person (a joke)
"And USA colonial war against Iraq was(?) OK, then? "
Considering the most recent evidence shows that most iraqis see it as worse the war was not ok. Unlike, lets say, afghanistan.
"DM is NOT being logical (as usual) . "
You can assert this but it isnt true.
"THE SAME polling firm he trusts about happy Libyans exactly a year after the beginning of "revolution", published a poll about happy Iraqis exactly a year after the USA colonial war against Iraq "
DM claims NOW, that Iraq is not so happy, so the war was not good. BUT by the polling firm he trusts, Iraqis WERE happy in 2004! "
Lidia you seem to be having difficulty grasping some pretty simple information.
In 2004 polling evidence showed that most iraqis were happy, but as the years went by and as violence got worse polling evidence showed that this was no longer the case. The iraqi people like any other population changed their mood in response to their living conditions.
The most recent poll taken in iraq found that iraqis now feel that things are worse than they were beforehand.
http://aai.3cdn.net/2212d2d41f760d327e_fxm6vtlg7.pdf
Because things are worse for the iraqis i feel that this war was wrong, the most recent polls in afghanistan
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/afghanistan-abc-news-national-survey-poll-show-support/story?id=9511961#.T0fErodmJcF
and libya
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/poll-watcher-libya-cheers-revolution-americans-hesitant-on-syria-iran/2012/02/01/gIQApiQsFR_blog.html
however found the opposite results, therefore i feel that these interventions were just.
"1) The polling firm is a b...s... factory, both its polls are non-relevant
2) The polling firm is a good polling firm, both its polls are true ones"Te second one is the correct option."2) DM should change his opinion about Iraq and decide it was, after all, a right thing to bomb them, "Why would i do something like that?The most recent poll in 2011 found that the situation was worse, therefore i am against the intervention in iraq." to look into facts and call spade a spade, and NATO rape of Libya - a rape, all 93% optimistic Libyan polls notwithstanding. But DM is unable to do it."Yes, lets look at the facts, the facts show most libyans prefer life more now than they did before, if you had your way things would have been worse for them, that is what the facts show lidia." I am not sure that DM has read this poll back then. I have not, as far as I know. But it seems my only info was a bit more good that the pollsters' :)"Your info was no better or worse, the poll never claimed bad things were not happening, it just showed that at the time the iraqis felt that the situation was better than living under saddam, as the situation got worse they changed their minds.This shouldnt be hard to grasp.
"
DM: PRO-USA dictators should NOT be removed, because they are NOT mass-murdering (or murdering less)"
When did i say that they should not be removed? Lidia please dont make things up, debate my points, not ones that you have made up in your head.
I felt that i have been quite clear that foreign governments should apply pressure for all these countries to become more democratic, and if a certain ruler whether he be saudi or syrian starts to commit major human rights abuses that pressure should increase dramatically.
That is what we are seeing in syria, if other nations like sa started to commit the same level of abuses the same attitude should be taken.
"efforts to made me a better person "
That ship sailed quite some time ago.
Also do you feel that your country should stop sending aid to syria?
"
1) DM: Assad is no good even without mass murder, he should be removed because he is a dictator"
I should also add i did not say he should be removed for being a dictator, i said he should step down. They all should.
Post a Comment