What chance of implementing it organically do people in dictatorships have ?
Putin and Russia in Syria
- Thread starter Dans
- Start date
What chance of implementing it organically do people in dictatorships have ?
Do you know what would actually be refreshing? You replying to the questions posed to you, like the ones Nucks asked in his post. You're ducking and avoiding anything directed at you and instead all you do is accuse and demand, as if somebody owes you something here. This is not a court case and you're not a prosecutor. This is a discussion and you have done nothing so far to disprove the notion that the US government's misguided and at times downright criminal policies is the biggest reason for the whole mess in the Middle East, including terrorist activity, mass refugee flight, death and destruction, etc.
As for me, I'm just trying to explain why, in my opinion, Putin is doing what he's doing. If it looks like defending his actions, it's probably because you and a few other, mostly US posters, do not even attempt to see the full picture and just keep repeating the usual western propaganda mantra about bad Putin and horrible Russia. When someone points out to you for the thousandth time that your own country has been doing far worse on a much bigger scale, you ignore it. When you're told that you really know very little about the history, mentality and the reality of the 'situation on the ground', whether it's Syria, Ukraine or any other place you decided to enrich with your personal brand of American democracy, again you ignore it. When you're told about the role the USA played in what Putin's foreign policies have been for the last few years or so, you dismiss it. You refuse to even entertain the idea that your country may be the 'bad guy' in some of this. It's like they programmed you in the CIA lab and sent out into the world to spread the good news about how good America is and anyone who isn't totally convinced is obviously wrong.
The problem with most Americans is their ignorance of the world outside of their own country. You wouldn't believe how laughable some of the stuff about Ukraine or Russia that you and a few other posters post here at times. It reminds me of quite a few Russians I met over the years who are confident that they know what America is all about and they accumulated that precious knowledge without having to leave their living room couches somewhere in deep Russian province. They know next to nothing about the subject, of course, but you can never change their minds and no amount of arguing will help.
I don't work for the Russian government nor am I a part of Putin's inner circle, so I'm just taking guess when stating reasons for his actions. I'm not justifying it, I'm trying to understand. You, on the other hand, are not even trying, because you got it all figured out. Why bother, then?
So let's bomb them then, right? That'll speed things up.
No, let's promote Democracy by supporting the aspirations of the people instead of Assad or Putin. People inside authoritarian systems rarely have the means to pursue Democratic reforms from within for fear of persecution, which is why its morally critical that they receive help from the outside. It's quite telling that Putin banned USAID from operating inside Russia, as they are a key development organization that supports the expansion of democracy and economic development inside developing countries.
Well, they can organize peaceful protests...until Mr. Assad starts killing them.
People who suggest that, think that a stable dictator is some kind of stepping stone on the way forward when in fact they are the exact opposite. The reason most of the countries mentioned as ungovernable by democracy are the way they are is because they have had a dictator in power generally for very long periods. Moderate opposition and reasonable criticism is eradicated and then all that is left are the extremists. So when the dictator eventually dies or falls its a blood bath. Meanwhile all the money has been syphoned off and the economy has usually collapsed.
The world is full of dictators some we have to deal with some are beyond the pale but you don't have to pretend they are needed as an antidote to extremists when they are the cause of them.
That is just one of many reasons why the whole "spreading democracy" things doesn´t work.
Again, you're singling out Assad whereas keeping quiet on the Saudis and Bahrainis.
If the people of a country want democratic reforms it'll happen, ala Tunisia. If the country is torn between loyalists and 20 different rebel groups, then interfering under the guise of democracy will only exacerbate things, as has been proven time and time again.
I'm talking about Assad and Putin because they are the central topics of this and the other thread. I don't however limit my view to just them, and would include all authoritarian dictatorships in the equation. In the case of the Saudis, Bahrainis, and all the other usual suspects you bring up; if they are collaborative and willing to work with western nations to institute reforms, then that's the road that should be taken. The US has been too lax with its allies in this regard. The central point however remains that developed, western democracies should take the lead in speaking out against authoritarian dictatorships, since the people in those countries aren't able exert their own voices for fear of persecution. This is merely a diplomatic and mitigation extension of the UN's Responsibility to Protect protocol.
Well, America got rid of Saddam 13 years ago. What a terrorist free paradise modern Iraq is. Let's also not forget that now with Gaddafi gone everyone who covets peaceful and rewarding life is trying to get to Libya by any means of transportation they can get their hands on (or is it the other way around, I'm not sure). The big chunk of of Siryan territory that isn't controlled by the bloodthirsty despot Assad is now governed by an easygoing and friendly bunch, which, if it had an online profile, would probably state among their likes wearing black, beheadings as their favorite hobby and among dislikes anyone who doesn't like what they like.
I can see this policy of taking care of Middle Eastern dictators is really working out for the people in those countries. I bet they're genuinely overjoyed at those recent changes in their lives. Of course, millions of them lost their homes, hundreds of thousands lost their lives and their countries are in large parts overrun by the bearded fanatics with guns. But hey, freedom and democracy are just around the corner.
Last edited:
Putin has an overwhelming support among the Russia's populace. Whose aspirations are you planning support down there and what makes you think you have the right to interfere in the first place?
Here's a good explanation of why US policies towards Russia will not succeed. Vladimir Pozner is a brilliant journalist and a very intelligent man, who has a unique ability of seeing things from both sides, he lived most of his life in the Soviet Union, then Russia, but was born and raised in the US and France, has three citizenships and still spends a lot of time in all three countries and is probably the most renowned interviewer in Russian television history. In this 16 minute video excerpt of his lecture at Cambridge there's more valuable information about what Russia and Russians are like and how they view the world and their place in it than you can find in most western mainstream media sources. Pozner is, by the way, is no friend or supporter of Putin and his politics, but importantly he has enough integrity to tell things the way he sees them.
Not hard when you're a dictator and have an iron grip on state run media. You can craft your image into a cult of personality that is difficult to publicly criticize, and harass, imprison, and murder anyone who challenges you publicly. Given such an arrangement, who in their right mind would tell a Russian pollster they don't like Putin.
There's this thing called the internet, Raoul, you should check it out. It may come as a surprise, but it's widely available in Russia and is full of anti-Putin and anti-Russian government materials, a lot of them based in Russia and are in Russian.
Not all the media is state run. There are various media sources that translate an opposing view, although the situation did get progressively worse during Putin's reign, that's true.
Also, watch the video and you may learn what the biggest reason behind Putin's popularity among Russians is, and it's not state propaganda.
If you mean Russia Today, the Russian government-funded television network, then no, he has nothing to do with it.
No, I have watched him give a talk entitled Russia Today. its about 45 minutes and then a Q and A.
He is very specific that he does not justify Russian policy and that he disagrees with it though he does try to explain why or at least give a context as to why Russia is acting the way it is.
Its not support for Putin's actions unless he has changed his mind.
The excerpt is from his lecture at Cambridge University, here in full.
Here's another short clip of him discussing Putin.
Last edited:
Not that's not what you want. It's not a coincidence that the governments you criticise all happen to be the main enemies of your country. What you want is, like everybody else, to see your country the strongest and the best in the world. It's the danger you're sensing from some countries that could threaten your country's superiority that makes you join your nation's propaganda.
I don't want you to support this or that. It's your choice (and your right) to support whom you want. What I want you to do is stop talking about "dictatorship" and "democracy" because they mean nothing to you (when it comes to other countries). If the country is giving you oil then dictatorship is great. If terrorism is helping you in your political struggles, then terrorism is great. When a country doesn't serve your interests, then "dictators!". If somebody is pointing the gun at you, then "terrorists!".
That's my first problem with what you're saying (the hypocrisy). The second problem I have with how you talk about other countries, is the ignorance about the huge differences between different countries. Just look at the Brussel explosions thread, and notice how much of an effect one attack had on the way people are thinking.
After one attack people are already talking about fearing all Muslims, about revenge (still a controlled one though at this stage), about how to deal with "those people" (all Muslims)... You can already feel that the small cracks in the society (between Muslims and non-Muslims) are slowly but surely getting bigger and bigger. Imagine if you live in a country, where every dot in this map is an explosion like the one in Brussel, in the space of 10 years.
How do you think the discussions, and the society will look like in the Western countries if this happened in any Western country? Calm? Friendly? Tolerant? Do really believe democracy can survive in these circumstances?
You really want democracy? Ask yourself first, who's putting all these dots on the map, and which country is the biggest source and the number 1 supporter for people putting these dots on the map? I have a hint for you..
European Parliament identifies Wahabi and Salafi roots of global terrorism
So, next time you have a democratic chat with your government, don't forget to raise this up, if you really care about other people in the world. And spreading democracy.
Last edited:
True.Not that's not what you want. It's not a coincidence that the governments you criticise all happen to be the main enemies of your country. What you want is, like everybody else, to see your country the strongest and the best in the world. It's the danger you're sensing from some countries that could threaten your country's superiority that makes you join your nation's propaganda.
I don't want you to support this or that. It's your choice (and your right) to support whom you want. What I want you to do is stop talking about "dictatorship" and "democracy" because they mean nothing to you (when it comes to other countries). If the country is giving you oil then dictatorship is great. If terrorism is helping you in your political struggles, then terrorism is great. When a country doesn't serve your interests, then "dictators!". If somebody is pointing the gun at you, then "terrorists!".
That's my first problem with what you're saying (the hypocrisy). The second problem I have with how you talk about other countries, is the ignorance about the huge differences between different countries. Just look at the Brussel explosions thread, and notice how much of an effect one attack had on the way people are thinking.
After one attack people are already talking about fearing all Muslims, about revenge (still a controlled one though at this stage), about how to deal with "those people" (all Muslims)... You can already feel that the small cracks in the society (between Muslims and non-Muslims) are slowly but surely getting bigger and bigger. Imagine if you live in a country, where every dot in this map is an explosion like the one in Brussel, in the space of 10 years.
How do you think the discussions, and the society will look like in the Western countries if this happened in any Western country? Calm? Friendly? Tolerant? Do really believe democracy can survive in these circumstances?
You really want democracy? Ask yourself first, who's putting all these dots on the map, and which country is the biggest source and the number 1 supporter for people putting these dots on the map? I have a hint for you..
European Parliament identifies Wahabi and Salafi roots of global terrorism
So, next time you have a democratic chat with your government, don't forget to raise this up, if you really care about other people in the world. And spreading democracy.
Posner pretty much lays out in the first few minutes that Putin controls the media, and as such, Russian perceptions of the west. At the end, he says he doesn't like him.
This is a pretty good debate on Russia v The West....
Not that's not what you want. It's not a coincidence that the governments you criticise all happen to be the main enemies of your country. What you want is, like everybody else, to see your country the strongest and the best in the world. It's the danger you're sensing from some countries that could threaten your country's superiority that makes you join your nation's propaganda.
I don't want you to support this or that. It's your choice (and your right) to support whom you want. What I want you to do is stop talking about "dictatorship" and "democracy" because they mean nothing to you (when it comes to other countries). If the country is giving you oil then dictatorship is great. If terrorism is helping you in your political struggles, then terrorism is great. When a country doesn't serve your interests, then "dictators!". If somebody is pointing the gun at you, then "terrorists!".
That's my first problem with what you're saying (the hypocrisy). The second problem I have with how you talk about other countries, is the ignorance about the huge differences between different countries. Just look at the Brussel explosions thread, and notice how much of an effect one attack had on the way people are thinking.
After one attack people are already talking about fearing all Muslims, about revenge (still a controlled one though at this stage), about how to deal with "those people" (all Muslims)... You can already feel that the small cracks in the society (between Muslims and non-Muslims) are slowly but surely getting bigger and bigger. Imagine if you live in a country, where every dot in this map is an explosion like the one in Brussel, in the space of 10 years.
How do you think the discussions, and the society will look like in the Western countries if this happened in any Western country? Calm? Friendly? Tolerant? Do really believe democracy can survive in these circumstances?
You really want democracy? Ask yourself first, who's putting all these dots on the map, and which country is the biggest source and the number 1 supporter for people putting these dots on the map? I have a hint for you..
European Parliament identifies Wahabi and Salafi roots of global terrorism
So, next time you have a democratic chat with your government, don't forget to raise this up, if you really care about other people in the world. And spreading democracy.
You are citing the actions of countries that are dictatorships as an argument against democracy. You haven't thought that through have you?
Democracy alone isn´t a quick-fix without the existence of a homogeneous populous. This reductionist understanding of democracy, where democracy=elections, is just leading to the tyranny of the majority over the minority. So if you introduce elections with the military into multi-cultural/-ethnic/-religious societies you create problems; you don´t solve them. That doesn´t mean, that democracy is bad, but that the situation is just so much more complex.
Theses issues are also not unique to the middle east, but there are various examples all over the world including the Europe. You could go back to the time after the world wars or just look at Belgium.
Very few people are actually arguing against democracy in principle. Most just argue against the careless and clueless introduction of elections via military interventions into societies without any knowledge about those societies.
Theses issues are also not unique to the middle east, but there are various examples all over the world including the Europe. You could go back to the time after the world wars or just look at Belgium.
Very few people are actually arguing against democracy in principle. Most just argue against the careless and clueless introduction of elections via military interventions into societies without any knowledge about those societies.
Dictatorships, remove the characteristics in populations which help democracies function well. I think in the end it is racist to say that various peoples can not manage democracy, imperialists often said that about countries which are now democracies. No one is going to persuade me that people in this or that country does not deserve the best form of government we have managed to invent, imperfect though it is.
Introducing it isn't simple or an instant cure and I have not said it is but I haven't heard any of the nay sayers suggest any better ideas.
The policies of Saudi Arabia which Danny pushes as his main reason for supporting vile regimes like Assad's are driven by that countries monarchy's desperate desire to keep power using religion to quell dissent internally and inspire countless atrocities abroad. His proposal to solve this is to support other despots and tyrants as they become even more despotic and tyrannical. I don't see the logic.
Dictatorships usually destroy civil society, which is necessary for democracy. That I agree with.
I have never said, that "various people can not manage democracy". Actually I said almost exactly the opposite. The European experience after the world wars is quite informative. Multi-ethnic empires ceased to exist and the large parts of the population were displaced so they´d live the boarders of "their" nation. Minorities who remained in place often suffered despite democracy and despite having often the same religion and fairly similar cultures simply because they had different heritage and spoke a different language.
The fact that the cleavage in modern Belgium are still running along cultural lines is both shocking and telling - despite over 50 years of peace and economic prosperity.
The circumstances in the middle east are a billion times worse. I also don´t have to suggest "better" ideas. The current policy of regime-change and democratisation via military intervention failed miserably in every conceivable metric. It failed in Afghanistan, it failed in Iraq, it failed in Libya and it would have failed in Syria. If your policy leads to incredible misery you stop it. Yes, even doing nothing is usually better. That people still havn´t learned this lesson is mind-boggling. Furthermore I wouldn´t advocate doing nothing. There are various non-military means to help. Don´t sell weapons to the region. Don´t support dictators. Trade with them on equal footing. Engage their societies. Deliver technology and humanitarian aid, when needed. Invest in their countries if possible. Create interdependence. Many of those things might only help little or they are just a long-shot. Still that should be the way forward; not bombing one country after another.
I have never said, that "various people can not manage democracy". Actually I said almost exactly the opposite. The European experience after the world wars is quite informative. Multi-ethnic empires ceased to exist and the large parts of the population were displaced so they´d live the boarders of "their" nation. Minorities who remained in place often suffered despite democracy and despite having often the same religion and fairly similar cultures simply because they had different heritage and spoke a different language.
The fact that the cleavage in modern Belgium are still running along cultural lines is both shocking and telling - despite over 50 years of peace and economic prosperity.
The circumstances in the middle east are a billion times worse. I also don´t have to suggest "better" ideas. The current policy of regime-change and democratisation via military intervention failed miserably in every conceivable metric. It failed in Afghanistan, it failed in Iraq, it failed in Libya and it would have failed in Syria. If your policy leads to incredible misery you stop it. Yes, even doing nothing is usually better. That people still havn´t learned this lesson is mind-boggling. Furthermore I wouldn´t advocate doing nothing. There are various non-military means to help. Don´t sell weapons to the region. Don´t support dictators. Trade with them on equal footing. Engage their societies. Deliver technology and humanitarian aid, when needed. Invest in their countries if possible. Create interdependence. Many of those things might only help little or they are just a long-shot. Still that should be the way forward; not bombing one country after another.
I think every single statement in this post is either wrong, inaccurate, or a flat out lie.
Racist? I've just posted a pretty long post explaining how it has nothing to do with the people but with the circumstance, I even explained that I don't think democracy in Europe will survive if people there were subjected to what people in the middle East are subjected to. Do you even know what the word racist mean?
Nobody suggested a better idea? How about stop supporting the number 1 source of terrorism which is threatening democracy, tolerance and freedom not only in the middle East, but even in Europe now? Didn't you hear me when I said it 300 times already?
And: "His proposal to solve this is to support other despots and tyrants". Really? That was my proposal? Read up. Have you forgotten already what I wanted you to discuss with your government in your next democratic chat?
What a ridiculous post.
The biggest threat to democracy isn't terrorists, its cowards handing them victory by moving away from a right to freedom of speech and to an acceptance of Tyrants.You can't replace one bad terrorist ideology with a, for the moment, less bad terrorist ideology and expect to defeat it. Its a battle for ideas and you have given up that fight before you start when you support Assad and Putin.
Once you tie yourself to Assad what control do you have, you are making the same mistake the US did with Saddam. He's a cnut but he is our cnut right up until he isn't.
The end game has to be all people having a democratic say in their govt. Not full control of all people by strongman dictatorships.
It's very clear that you haven't lived in the middle East, or under any circumstances similar to the ones they have in the middle East right now. You (probably) have no idea how dissociated you are from the reality (you probably have, but I'd assume you don't to continue the debate).
The dictators are the best advertisers for democracy, and especially the bad ones. It's the best way to make people realise the need for democracy. What dictators do is destroy the state, but terrorism destroys the society. The state is much easier to build than the society, and without a homogenous society, you'll never be able to build a democracy.
Ironically, the people who are following this line of propaganda here are the same people who advertise for giving their own governments more surveillance rights to combat terrorism. They're the same people who advertise for the idea "if you haven't done anything wrong why would you not want the government to spy on you?!", which kind of also makes them "cowards handing the terrorists victory by moving from a right to freedom", don't you think?
Also, once again, I never asked you to support Assad or Putin, I asked you to ask your "democratic" government to stop supporting the biggest dictatorship and sponsor for terrorism in the world, Saudi Arabia. Thank you.
Eh, what on earth does that sentence even mean. You are going to make an assumption you don't even believe in order to validate your line of attack against the argument you haven't understood. Well done , carry on.
Can you really believe that the best route to democracy is bad dictatorship? I beg to differ, I think you are completely wrong and while you are waiting billions remain oppressed waiting for things to get so bad they start a revolution which then you hope gets quashed by the dictator so things can get even worse. Fantastic route to progress that is.
I would start with getting a democracy, living in one and understanding it and then talk about how you protect it against people like you who don't understand it, don't value it and would see it removed even as a goal from people you don't think deserve it, just like most extremist, racist or bigoted people do.
And see it replaced with what? That is your problem you know what you are against but you can't say what you are for.
That's what a true hero looks like.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-Rambo-wiped-calling-airstrikes-HIMSELF.html
Looks like Putin is actually beefing up in Syria rather than pulling out. Another lie for international consumption it seems.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-30/russian-nuclear-ballistic-missile-iskander-spotted-syria
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-30/russian-nuclear-ballistic-missile-iskander-spotted-syria
A ballistic missile for 400km?
Sounds a bit like the trick he pulled in Donbass - publicly claiming to retreat and negotiate in order to reduce the pressure, whilst privately continuing to inject weapons and troops, then brazenly lying about it when confronted. Par for the course with his new brand of hybrid warfare.
- If you don't what that sentence means then it's not worth it to try to explain it to you.
- Buddy, again, you're not on the side of democracy, you're not fooling anybody with that, no matter how many times you repeat it. You're just supporting another worse, and far more dangerous dictatorship, that's all.
- Starting with democracy (even if you achieve it) doesn't guarantee that you're gonna keep going in the right direction. Look at Turkey (another ally of yours incidentally).
- I don't care about the obsessions of some Americans here. I have been very straight forward about what I don't want to see happening in the middle East, which your country has been doing for decades now (helping to spread terrorism).
And finally, it has never been, and will never be about dictatorship for you, and your country. In fact it's your country who installed, supported and is still supporting most of the dictators in the middle East.
This is what you want to see in Syria, right?
Nusra Front, Syrian rebels attack government forces near Aleppo, gain ground
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nusra-front-syrian-rebels-attack-government-forces-near-171610317.html
Not surprised you're not fussed about these "violations".
I've no clue what the feck you're talking about.
Erdoğan apologises for downing of Russian jet, Kremlin says.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/27/kremlin-says-erdogan-apologises-russian-jet-turkish
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/27/kremlin-says-erdogan-apologises-russian-jet-turkish
What an idiot.Apparently they also offered compensation 'if necessary' to rebuild the relations, even though later they retracted a bit with "at this moment it's not on the table".