Middle East conflict and whether Western blame oversimplifies its causes

😂 even if you 'think' Russia might have 'taught' suicide bombing to middle east suicide bombers without supporting evidence of teaching thus; Russia is not part of 'the west' anyway. Geopolitically or culturally or geographically, Russia is not part of 'the west'.

The problem in talking about how complex it all is, serves to minimises the damage by muting the urgency of the need for change now. It just comes across as self indulgent navel gazing tbh

My husband used to be a paramedic. He attended a scene once where the impact was minor, with no injuries. Yet one of the passengers died of a heart attack, presumably because of the shock.

He also attended many accidents where to speed of the not at fault driver was a factor in the extent of the injuries.

So yes. Things have multiple causes. Things are complex. I'm finding it very odd that people are arguing against this.

The state of a nation is also vastly more complex than whether or not someone passed in an RTA.

I don't really feel I've twisted myself at all to be fair. I simply think the West has done a lot of terrible things and other nations have too. Because at heart I believe we're all pretty similar and prone to the same kinds of behaviors.

You seem to think I'm arguing the West is not to blame. I'm not. I'm saying its not totally to blame. Just like that old man wasn't totally to blame for his wife's death in the minor accident he caused.

Interesting argument.

Like if you ran over someone with your car and they died. You accept your action was detrimental to their physical health- but other variables could have caused their death, like their chronic smoking or lack of physical exercise.

I am curious about why you're twisting yourself into a pretzel defending something that has been widely accepted by politicians, academia, and the world really. Does it make you feel personal guilt or something

Sometimes I think you purposely miss the point.

I've said many times the West has meddled. The vast majority of that meddling has been detrimental.

Lots of other variables have affected the trajectory of states in the ME. Including the choices of those countries own rulers. Other countries have muddled too. Some of this meddling may be good, certainly some will be bad too, as all countries act in their own best national interests.

Imo it's impossible to say with any confidence that any one situation is totally down to Western interference.

Sometimes I think you purposely miss the point.

I've said many times the West has meddled. The vast majority of that meddling has been detrimental.

Lots of other variables have affected the trajectory of states in the ME. Including the choices of those countries own rulers. Other countries have muddled too. Some of this meddling may be good, certainly some will be bad too, as all countries act in their own best national interests.

Imo it's impossible to say with any confidence that any one situation is totally down to Western interference.

Quote " Other countries not part of the West are still meddling, backing one faction over another, and those countries have had a part to play too."

How does this logic work. Other non western countries meddling is bad, but western countries doing it is not bad ?

I did read your posts. Thanks- I learned something.

It does sound to me like some of the choices Gaddafi made may possibly have contributed to the state of Libya today. It also sounds like the people contributing to the chaos today also need to take some responsibility for their choices. Other countries not part of the West are still meddling, backing one faction over another, and those countries have had a part to play too.

I believe you're massively oversimplifying it.

I don't know how much you know of the overthrow of Gaddafi or if you managed to read my previous posts on this thread. The primary driver that led the US to overthrow Gaddafi was his attempt to unite Africa and replace the US Dollar as the main currency with a new African Gold Dinar. When the uprising happened and the US thought that Gaddafi was going to defeat the rebels, they actually joined in to supress Gaddafi's forces. I stand by Totally. The US destroyed Libya in order to put an end to the Gold Dinar.

No, Gaddafi was not supported by the West. In fact they were annoyed when he overthrew King Idris because he was their man. Sadam Hussein overthrew a very popular president in Iraq the West didn't like, Mohammed Pehlavi overthrew the democratically elected prime minister in Iran, Husni Al Zaim overthrew the democratically elected president in Syria, Iyad Allawi was foisted on the Iraqi people after the gulf war, Hamad Kharzai was foisted on the Afghani population to mention just some of the leaders the West were involved with which led to the instability. The West were involved in all of these unpopular leaders being foisted upon the people. Then we have the other interference. The Iran/Iraq war. The revolution in Syria where we now have a leader of ISIS in charge. The Suez crisis but I suppose Eisenhower was opposed to that. I could go on and on about how the West has interfered in the Middle East. Read the Memoirs of Mister Hempher, confessions of a British Spy.

What do you mean Cromwell wasn't a dictator strong man. He killed the king, disbanded Parliament and executed anyone who opposed him while ruling with absolute power calling himself Lord Protector. Charles the II hunted down all the signatories on Charles I execution warrant, about 60 odd. He even sent mercenaries to hunt them down in the US when they escaped to there.

Totally is a very strong word, and very confident.

I don't believe we can ever know with such certainty. There are so many variables, such complexity.

I prefer to believe people in the ME have more agency and control of their own situations, and are not mere helpless puppets of the West.

Cromwell being such a nice and lovely ruler.
Technically though, it’s in modern history as its post medieval.

The culture of the people?? The country is totally fucked now and it is not partly due to the West but totally. Even Obama said, the worst mistake of his presidency was failing to plan for the day after the intervention in Libya.

You didn't address my question at all.

I'm not an expert on Libya but I suspect its pretty fucked right now.

And in my opinion that's partly to do with the meddling of the West, the culture of the people, and the brutality of those in power, the natural resources, the geography, the history ( including the history before the West was of any consequence) etc.

Without Western/US support, they probably wouldn't even have attempted to challenge Gaddafi but now they have and taken power, how is Libya doing?

And absolutely no responsibility to those tribal leaders who are as you say constantly vying violently for power? No responsibility to those criminals who care nothing for the people?

Are they savages, with no hope other than be constantly fighting or oppressed under a dictator?

Or is every single one of them, dictator to average person on the street to violent criminal making their own choices on how to behave in society?

Good grief, the 17th century was a completely different time. What are you all talking about!!?

Then you totally misunderstood my post. The only way strong men dictators, like Gaddafi, remain in power is by draconian rule. I'm not saying it is right but when a country, like Libya, is divided into different tribes and factions, all vying for power, the only way any political leader is going to survive is with tactics which we would class as barbaric. This is nothing new. In the UK, before we became a constitutional Monarchy, which is our form of democracy, Oliver Cromwell was a brutal dictator. When Charles II came to power, although he pardoned his enemies with the Declaration of Breda but not the ones who were actively involved in his fathers execution. They were hunted to the ends of the earth. (The angel of Hadley is an interesting story). The point is brutal suppression of opposition is nothing unique to Gaddafi. The current state of Libya, however, a destroyed country in tatters being run by criminals who care nothing for the people, is the direct responsibility of the West.

Oh, I didn’t even bring up the death march of Scottish prisoners by Cromwell from the battle of Dunbar. Over 5,000 prisoners of war, less than 2,000 survived. Or the Scottish women raped and murdered in the sack of Dunbar.

Er, no, Cromwell was NOT a brutal dictator in England and neither was Charles II. Very interested in who Charles hunted to the ends of the earth? You perhaps misunderstand the seriousness of a regicide in those days though. Anyway, These are nonsense comparisons. Obviously the definition of a strongman dictator is that they rule by draconian rule. The existence of these people is not the fault of the West.

Obviously, I know my 17th century history. Its a nonsense to say 'they' were all brutal dictators.

Amazing isn't it. A "foreign" brutal dictator is an horrific brutal dictator. But an "English" brutal dictator was not. It appears he was doing it "for the good of the people" ? Or something like that.

And for long after Cromwell it was still going on. Open warfare in the UK during the '45. Go into the start of the 20th century even.. striking miners in Wales... send the army in. Famine in Bengal... let them starve.

Quote " Er, no, Cromwell was NOT a brutal dictator in England..."..

Erm, I note you specified that by saying in England.

Of course he was a brutal dictator. They pretty much all were.