General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Syria's rebels are not an al-Qaeda army [View all]Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You start with the false premise that because I am universally against wars of choice, I am defending "authoritarianism".
Ironically you claim to be a supporter of "self-determination" but seem to feel that other countries cannot determine their own fates.
When I argue that there is chaos and bloodshed after the Western intervention, you say "well it is inevitable and unavoidable".
If that is the case, then I think you must also accept the fact that blood will be spilled when they themselves decide to revolt.
Surely you also can appreciate the fact that by interfering, we inevitably poison these movements. The leaders we support invariably get tainted by that support both in reality and in the minds of the supporters who are no fans of the US and other interfering Western powers. So we ALWAYS set up a situation that will have some kind of blowback.
In fact, ALL such destructive actions and acts of violence always have blowback aspects to them.
If you feel that the people in Libya and Syria are so capable of self-determination, then give them the credit they deserve. Allow them to be the change they have been waiting for.
With Western intervention, a pattern is always created whereby a Western friendly leader is placed in power (he wouldn't attain power unless he IS western-friendly as you know). And SINCE he is western-friendly, a dynamic in which he will inevitably be despised as a puppet is created. This has been shown time and time again and it is why your interventionist ideas will never work.