Shootings in Paris: I'm from Paris and I don't freak out, so why should you?

Started by Monsieur OUXX, Sat 14/11/2015 11:04:54

Previous topic - Next topic

MiteWiseacreLives!

Perhaps my headspace on the matter in still stuck in the nineties, your clearly pretty read up on the matter.
Although you will have a hard time convincing me that the entire world is interested in getting involved in the Middle-East because they love SAND so much. I think the flow of oil is higher on the priority list than the spread of democracy if that's what you mean by:
QuoteI think it's a dangerous distortion of what most modern wars are really primarily about: achieving policy objectives.
There are alot of valid points like removing threats to security etc., but saving the world is probably not one of them.
This thread was about the tragedy in Paris, a sad loss of life and disgusting show of hate. 

Snarky

Yes, let's get back to the topic at hand. I just read this, which I think is a good overview of the past and possible future of the war in Syria: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n23/adam-shatz/magical-thinking-about-isis

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 19/11/2015 19:33:52
Perhaps it is foolish to think you can impose peace with bombs or drones or mercenaries, but I think it's also foolish to think that fanatical thugs slaughtering their way across half the world will be defeated without any armed fighting, just by...

I explained exactly how. Fell free not to listen. Fanaticals are stopped by stability and economic heatlh. The exact opposite of military interventions. They're incompatible. They don't mix. At all. Ever.
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Mon 23/11/2015 17:11:33
I explained exactly how. Fell free not to listen. Fanaticals are stopped by stability and economic heatlh.

Perhaps (it certainly can't hurt), but many of the ISIS/Daesh fighters come from Europe, and most of the Paris attackers were French or Belgian. If France and Belgium aren't stable/economically healthy enough to avert fanaticism, it'll be a long time before the Middle East is.

QuoteThe exact opposite of military interventions. They're incompatible. They don't mix. At all. Ever.

That's just not true. You're reasoning as if the alternative to military intervention is peace, like everything is going to be fine as long as we don't meddle, but that's usually not the case. Military interventions have defended democratically elected governments against attempted military coups (e.g. in the Philippines), ended (or averted likely) ethnic cleansing (e.g. in Cambodia and Kosovo), forced belligerents to lay down their arms (e.g. in Liberia), brought civil wars to an end (e.g. in the Ivory Coast), and restricted the operation of marauding guerillas and pirates.

Is military intervention enough by itself to bring lasting peace? No, of course not. But in a number of cases it does appear to have been a necessary component. Whether an intervention in justified or well-advised in a particular case, under what circumstances an intervention is likely to be successful, its pros and cons, and the moral or utilitarian calculus of even a successful intervention are matters for debate, but it's simply wrong to claim that military interventions have never helped secure stability.

Also, as a mattter of unpleasant fact, there have been fanatical insurgencies that have been defeated simply by crushing them militarily. For example, the Mahdist War in the Sudan was ended when British troops finally beat the mahdist fighters and killed the leaders. More recently, the civil war in Sri Lanka was ended with the brutal crushing of the equally brutal Tamil Tigers.

RickJ

I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more.  People who believe they can get whatever they want through violence will not be persuaded otherwise until they are met with force and utterely defeated.  It's as true now as it has been throughout history. 

NickyNyce

Dr. Judy Wood's new book will be hitting the shelves any day now.


Snarky

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 23/11/2015 20:55:09
I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more.  People who believe they can get whatever they want through violence will not be persuaded otherwise until they are met with force and utterely defeated.  It's as true now as it has been throughout history.

But that's not true either! There are plenty of examples throughout history of terrorists and other violent groups that eventually laid down their arms without ever being "utterly defeated" by force (or achieving their ultimate goal). Take the IRA and their Unionist foes, for example. Or communist revolutionaries in many countries who eventually moderated their views and formed modern, democratic Labor parties.

Of course, it seems impossible to make peace with ISIS/Daesh right now. (Their stated aim is to provoke war between the West and the Muslim world, so when you say we mustn't "give them what they want" ...) But things change. People change, leadership changes, ideas change. Compromises that once seemed impossible may, in time, turn out to be livable. All is possible.

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: RickJ on Mon 23/11/2015 20:55:09
I agree with Snarky on this one.  Fanatics are rarely satisfied with anything.  Give them what they want and they will be emboldened and want even more. 

This is not what I said at all. Like, at all. Wanting stability in these countries is not the same as "trying to satisfy fanaticals". How did you even


Also, about the fanaticals coming from France and Belgium: you'd be surprised by the poverty in some areas. In the US, very poor people are called "white trash" and some of them turn to tea parties and that sort of fanatism. In France and Belgium, the poorest class in society is (because of historical circumstances and colonialism) mostly made of the second or third generation of North-African immigrants who have more bonds with some trashy-fantasy version of Islam, just like white trash in the US has this trashy-fantasy version of Christianity. And even then, at least in the US, living in a caravan in the middle of nowhere can still be sort-of glorified because there's still this Far West fantasy from the 1800's. In France, if you live in a project housing, are unemployed, and on top of everything if you have the Arabian type, then you're virtually  at the very bottom of society. But they're the same. And it's all caused by poverty, lack of education, and rejection. They're the "left behind".
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 24/11/2015 14:25:49
Also, about the fanaticals coming from France and Belgium: you'd be surprised by the poverty in some areas. [...] In France, if you live in a project housing, are unemployed, and on top of everything if you have the Arabian type, then you're virtually  at the very bottom of society. But they're the same. And it's all caused by poverty, lack of education, and rejection. They're the "left behind".

Yes, but my point is that if France can't successfully solve these social problems at home, what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa? It's absolutely something we should work toward for its own sake, but it's not going to eliminate fanaticism, because "richer and more stable (and freer and more socially just) than France" is not a realistic goal for the foreseeable future. (We could also point to Saudi Arabia, which is about as rich and stable as any country in the region, and still the main exporter of radical Islamic ideology.)

Edit: To make a positive argument instead of just disagreeing with everyone, I'm forced to the conclusion that we cannot "solve" modern jihadism and the civil wars and terrorism it brings, no matter what strategy we choose. Eventually it will burn itself out, lose its fervor as it becomes institutionalized (like the Maoists in China), or the world will simply change so that it's no longer relevant (like the anarchists a hundred years ago). In the mean time, there will be more Muslim battlefields, and more attacks by radicalized homegrown terrorists in the West. We'll just have to muddle through, trying to contain the damage and address related problems without making the cure worse than the disease. The most appropriate means will vary depending on the situation, and will take a great deal of experimentation and study to identify.

I'm actually also increasingly skeptical of the effectiveness of military force in the long run, but I don't agree with ruling it out in principle in every case.

Monsieur OUXX

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 24/11/2015 14:55:21
what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa?

Well the roadmap is pretty clear:
1) Stop relying on oil, (that, you do at home, by investing in renewable energies)
2)Stop maintaining chaos there only to please some financial partners (either to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, or to not upset Israel when it comes to Palestine).

All of that sounds fairly easy, provided there's the will. It's not even about willpower, it's purely about stop believing in fairytales like "it helps more to divide local populations to maintain control than it would help to let them live". It's all about post-colonization management and outdated, colonial beliefs.

PS: Maoism died out in China only because the country gained sufficient financial stability and political independance at some stage. Before Mao arrived, it was a rotting feudal empire, dealing with a stagnating economy and invasive neighbours (Japan, Russia...).  Now China is more about middle class and consumerism than whatever revolutionary movement.
 

Snarky

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Tue 24/11/2015 16:09:09
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 24/11/2015 14:55:21
what are the chances you (or we) will solve them in the Middle East or North Africa?

Well the roadmap is pretty clear:

You're dodging my point: Will this make, in the foreseeable future, the Middle East more prosperous, stable, free and socially just than France? Because according to the logic of your argument, that's what it will take to end fanaticism and the violence it brings.

Quote1) Stop relying on oil, (that, you do at home, by investing in renewable energies)

So take away one of the main pillars of the economies of many Middle Eastern countries. This helps them how?

Quote2)Stop maintaining chaos there only to please some financial partners (either to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, or to not upset Israel when it comes to Palestine).

As I've argued in several posts now, I don't think the basic assumption here is true. The link between these claims is also obscure. Are you saying that the main motivations for US and European foreign policy in the Middle East are the presumably vast profits earned from selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and from "not upsetting Israel"? (How do they even get money from the latter?) It sounds more like you're just throwing together various points you don't like about the foreign policy, without really bothering to articulating a coherent pattern.

QuoteAll of that sounds fairly easy, provided there's the will. It's not even about willpower, it's purely about stop believing in fairytales like "it helps more to divide local populations to maintain control than it would help to let them live". It's all about post-colonization management and outdated, colonial beliefs.

So would you say your basic assumption is that all the problems in the Middle East are caused by Western meddling, and that if Western powers stopped actively "maintaining chaos", things would rapidly work out to a happy conclusion?

QuotePS: Maoism died out in China only because the country gained sufficient financial stability and political independance at some stage. Before Mao arrived, it was a rotting feudal empire, dealing with a stagnating economy and invasive neighbours (Japan, Russia...).  Now China is more about middle class and consumerism than whatever revolutionary movement.

Maoism was effectively abandoned in China because Mao died, and other old-school ideologues were purged. This happened soon after the enormous upheavals of the Cultural Revolution (with massive political instability and economic hardship), hardly proving your point.

RickJ

QuoteIn the US, very poor people are called "white trash" and some of them turn to tea parties and that sort of fanatism.
White trash is a derogatory American English racial slur referring to poor white people and you are a bigot for using the term to describe a political movement of which you appear to be entirely ignorant.   

QuoteBut that's not true either! There are plenty of examples throughout history of terrorists and other violent groups that eventually laid down their arms without ever being "utterly defeated" by force (or achieving their ultimate goal). Take the IRA and their Unionist foes, for example. Or communist revolutionaries in many countries who eventually moderated their views and formed modern, democratic Labor parties.
I don't know much about the IRA, other than they have or had some 200 ytear old beef with the gov. According to a Scottish friend of mine the British authorities hand killed off quite a few of them in the early 1980s. 

I can be persuaded me to take back the "utterly defeated" qualifer but believe that sooner or later the use of force will be required.

I agree that the fanatical muslims may stop blowing shit up when they achieve their goal, which is what?  Oh yeah that's right conquer the world! :=

Jack

YouTube: Die Anstalt: ISIS terrorism documentary doku 2015 terrorist - English subtitles ENG SUB

political satire by Max Uthoff and Claus von Wagner
Topic: ISIS and terrorism in general and how it all began - An entertaining summary with real facts.

*mic drop*

RickJ

That's funny ...  two German guys who are experts on evil dictators and against U.S. intervention in such matters...;-D

(edit)
Oh, they left out the part about how the Ottaman Empire was on the losing side of WWII and they gave all of their territory now referred to as the middle east to victors to do with as they pleased.

All the U.S. (and I suppose Briton and France also) wanted was stable and free countries there.  But that sort of thing seems to be incompatible with the dominate philosophy of the people who live there.  The problem is that nobody in the west wants to recognize that fact.

Jack

So, show of hands...

Who advocating military intervention will be putting on their army boots to go to a foreign country to kill for "stability"?

Snarky

That "argument" (ad hominem, rather) makes about as much sense as asking how many people in favor of universal healthcare are planning to qualify as doctors.

Edit: Or, maybe a more relevant comparison, whether people advocating for letting in more refugees are getting their guest bedrooms ready.

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 27/11/2015 23:59:36
That "argument" (ad hominem, rather) makes about as much sense as asking how many people in favor of universal healthcare are planning to qualify as doctors.

Edit: Or, maybe a more relevant comparison, whether people advocating for letting in more refugees are getting their guest bedrooms ready.

Should I take it to mean that you consider hosting Syrian refugees as dangerous as going to war in the middle east?

Because if you don't you might want to try again.

EDIT: Come to think of it, that's a really good question. Who advocating the debugging of foreign countries with drone strikes is willing to host the people displaced by their invasion?

Snarky

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sat 28/11/2015 00:07:26
Should I take it to mean that you consider hosting Syrian refugees as dangerous as going to war in the middle east?

No, I mean that all policies involve people having to do something. Individuals may support such policies without personally wishing to carry them out, for any number of reasons. Instead, the government hires dedicated people for the task. That's what we have a government and pay taxes for.

It is ridiculous to suggest that thinking a job should be done even if it's not something you want to do yourself is somehow hypocritical. I don't want to be a teacher, so if there's a policy to widen education, I must oppose it?

But I also don't consider you a serious debater, so I'll refrain from further response.

Jack

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 28/11/2015 00:41:36
No, I mean that all policies involve people having to do something. Individuals may support such policies without personally wishing to carry them out, for any number of reasons. Instead, the government hires dedicated people for the task. That's what we have a government and pay taxes for.
Unlike being a garbage man, or having to host refugees, or any other job you may consider beneath you, going to war comes at great human cost, one which any "serious debater" would be able to recognise or consider.

So when you're advocating military intervention to a foreign country, you're not only asking many faceless people to risk their lives, but also their sanity, and too frequently a catastrophic loss of quality of life even if they do survive. That is not to mention the high number of civilian deaths which get so easily filed away as "collateral damage".

So when you pay taxes to have someone else fulfil your policies that you don't personally wish to carry out yourself, you are largely dealing with resources. But when you start dealing with war you are dealing with human life and suffering on a gross scale. It should never be treated like a public convenience.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk