[skinster]

[ckaihatsu]

I like how this report not taking sides. I have my opinion but I am not in a position to say whether this is a good thing or not. This more probably is something "has to happen".

Studious non-answer there, bruh.

So "nothing's happened yet", according to you. Syria turned into shambles, with destruction everywhere, due to, what, 'negligence' alone -- ?

Here's more to the point:

United States

Main article: United States and state-sponsored terrorism

Rand Paul, junior U.S. Senator from Kentucky, has accused the U.S. government of indirectly supporting ISIL in the Syrian Civil War, by arming their allies and fighting their enemies in that country.[48] The US assisted the Syrian opposition from 2013 to 2017 (see CIA-led Timber Sycamore program) and according to some authors some of the US proxies worked with ISIL.[49] Donald Trump has claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "[were] the founder[s] of ISIS".[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_ISIL

[Patrickov]

So "nothing's happened yet", according to you.

Stop twisting my posts' meanings. I did NOT say that.

Syria turned into shambles, with destruction everywhere, due to, what, 'negligence' alone -- ?

I do think it is malice from all sides. As I said, the West should bear the burden but they play proxy war games instead.

[ckaihatsu]

Stop twisting my posts' meanings. I did NOT say that.

When you said that 'something has to happen', this statement implies that nothing *has* happened so far, even though there's a distinct history of the U.S. backing Islamic fundamentalist militarists in Syria:

Timber Sycamore was a classified weapons supply and training program run by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and supported by some Arab intelligence services, such as the security service in Saudi Arabia. Launched in 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. According to US officials, the program was run by the CIA's Special Activities Division[6] and has trained thousands of rebels.[7] President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria's embattled rebels in 2013.[8]

The program's existence was suspected after the US Federal Business Opportunities website publicly solicited contract bids to ship tons of weaponry from Eastern Europe to Taşucu, Turkey and Aqaba, Jordan.[9] One consequence of the program has been a flood of US weapons including assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades into Middle East's black market. Critics saw it as ineffective and expensive, and raised concerns about diversion of weapons to jihadist groups and about Timber Sycamore-backed rebels fighting alongside al-Nusra Front.[10]

In July 2017, US officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out, with funds possibly redirected to fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), or to offering rebel forces defensive capabilities.[11][12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

---

I do think it is malice from all sides. As I said, the West should bear the burden but they play proxy war games instead.

The West should 'bear the burden' of imperialist militarist invasions in the Middle East -- ?

Am I getting you correctly here?

What would be the Western *motivation* for directly invading the Middle East all over again, instead of using Islamist proxies? Oil? The Cold War 'domino theory'? The racist 'White Man's Burden'?

[Patrickov]

When you said that 'something has to happen', this statement implies that nothing *has* happened so far

I mean what Assad does is something that has to happen one way or another.

You got it horribly wrong.

The West should 'bear the burden' of imperialist militarist invasions in the Middle East -- ?

Am I getting you correctly here?

What would be the Western *motivation* for directly invading the Middle East all over again, instead of using Islamist proxies? Oil? The Cold War 'domino theory'? The racist 'White Man's Burden'?

The West should bear the responsibility of continuing direct rule at places where they irresponsibly left to the hands of local elites, who are often much more corrupt, selfish and oppressive.

All those places should revert to Western rule modelled after 1980's Hong Kong.

[ckaihatsu]

I mean what Assad does is something that has to happen one way or another.

You got it horribly wrong.

How *dramatic* -- 'horribly wrong'.

You do realize that you *suck* at describing your own position, right? Your vagueness and evasiveness means that you really don't even *want* to commit to a political position, most likely because you already *know* that you're on the wrong side of history.

Why should the people of Syria continue to suffer a humanitarian crisis just so that the U.S. / West can keep sanctions on Syria to "punish" Assad -- ? The result is *warfare* against civilians -- there's no two ways about it.

The West should bear the responsibility of continuing direct rule at places where they irresponsibly left to the hands of local elites, who are often much more corrupt, selfish and oppressive.

Okay, show me the resume then -- name *one* place that the West has done this, which turned out with good results for the population of that country.

All those places should revert to Western rule modelled after 1980's Hong Kong.

This is the touted 'success story' -- ?

The nationalists of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea -- the 'Asian Tigers' -- who benefitted from the incidental technological leapfrogging over the West's antiquated industrialism -- ?

You want to ascribe their economic success to -- apparently -- good, beneficial colonialist foreign administration from the Western imperialist countries, when in fact the phenomenon was *industrial*, and *economic*, primarily:

The Four Asian Tigers (also known as the Four Asian Dragons or Four Little Dragons in Chinese and Korean) are the economies of South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Between the early 1960s and 1990s, they underwent rapid industrialization and maintained exceptionally high growth rates of more than 7 percent a year.

By the early 21st century, these economies had developed into high-income economies, specializing in areas of competitive advantage. Hong Kong and Singapore have become leading international financial centres, whereas South Korea and Taiwan are leaders in manufacturing electronic components and devices. Their economic success have served as role models for many developing countries, especially the Tiger Cub Economies of southeast Asia.[1][2][3]

In 1993, controversial World Bank report The East Asian Miracle credited neoliberal policies to have caused the economic boom, including the maintenance of export-oriented policies, low taxes, and minimal welfare states. Institutional analyses found that some level of state intervention was involved.[4] Some analysts[who?] argued that industrial policy and state intervention had a much greater influence than the World Bank report suggested.[5][6]


Contents

Overview

Prior to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the growth of the Four Asian Tiger economies (commonly referred to as "the Asian Miracle") has been attributed to export oriented policies and strong development policies. Unique to these economies were the sustained rapid growth and high levels of equal income distribution. A World Bank report suggests two development policies among others as sources for the Asian miracle: factor accumulation and macroeconomic management.[8]

The Hong Kong economy underwent industrialization with the development of a textile industry in the 1950s. By the 1960s, manufacturing in the British colony had expanded and diversified to include clothing, electronics, and plastics for export orientation.[9] Following Singapore's independence, the Economic Development Board formulated and implemented national economic strategies to promote the country's manufacturing sector.[10] Industrial estates were set up and foreign investment was attracted to the country with tax incentives. Meanwhile, Taiwan and South Korea began to industrialize in the mid-1960s with heavy government involvement including initiatives and policies. Both countries pursued export-oriented industrialization as in Hong Kong and Singapore.[11] The four countries were inspired by Japan's evident success, and they collectively pursued the same goal by investing in the same categories: infrastructure and education. They also benefited from foreign trade advantages that sets them apart from other countries, most significantly economic support from the United States; part of this is manifested in the proliferation of American electronic products in common households of the Four Tigers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers

[Patrickov]

This is the touted 'success story' -- ?

The nationalists of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea -- the 'Asian Tigers' -- who benefitted from the incidental technological leapfrogging over the West's antiquated industrialism -- ?

You want to ascribe their economic success to -- apparently -- good, beneficial colonialist foreign administration from the Western imperialist countries, when in fact the phenomenon was *industrial*, and *economic*, primarily:

You simply ignore the civil rights (and arguably demicracy) which the British granted us towards the end of their rule, and which the Chinese shamelessly take away because our wakedness poses a threat to their dictatorial rule, right?

[ckaihatsu]

You simply ignore the civil rights (and arguably demicracy) which the British granted us towards the end of their rule, and which the Chinese shamelessly take away because our wakedness poses a threat to their dictatorial rule, right?

I'll readily say that China is rather *heavy-handed* in its treatment of those under its administration, but, on the flipside, it's also brought a broader modern civilization to formerly rural and backwards areas that wouldn't have happened otherwise, without China.

Also, consider that these separatist areas that you mention -- Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc. -- have no *historically progressive* politics, or vision, beyond what they're currently experiencing, aside from some civil rights that are lacking (see Myanmar, particularly).

Separatist politics *don't* pose a threat to heavy-handed rule -- there's nothing really *noble* about Aung San Suu Kyi's past willing collaboration with the military in Myanmar, and I see no way forward for any *other* repressed area, either, given the identity-politics being espoused by Muslim Uighurs, or the petty-bourgeois politics espoused by Hong Kong. (Recall that the American Revolution was a *bourgeois* revolution -- a 'lateral' move, mostly, though for *political* independence, certainly.)

Sure, I favor the protestors over the military, but the logical extension of what's going on is just endless tug-of-war, at *best*. The politics and economics of capitalism isn't really being challenged in any of these regions.

[Patrickov]

[ted][/ted]

I'll readily say that China is rather *heavy-handed* in its treatment of those under its administration, but, on the flipside, it's also brought a broader modern civilization to formerly rural and backwards areas that wouldn't have happened otherwise, without China.

Also, consider that these separatist areas that you mention -- Hong Kong, Xinjiang, etc. -- have no *historically progressive* politics, or vision, beyond what they're currently experiencing, aside from some civil rights that are lacking (see Myanmar, particularly).

Separatist politics *don't* pose a threat to heavy-handed rule -- there's nothing really *noble* about Aung San Suu Kyi's past willing collaboration with the military in Myanmar, and I see no way forward for any *other* repressed area, either, given the identity-politics being espoused by Muslim Uighurs, or the petty-bourgeois politics espoused by Hong Kong. (Recall that the American Revolution was a *bourgeois* revolution -- a 'lateral' move, mostly, though for *political* independence, certainly.)

Sure, I favor the protestors over the military, but the logical extension of what's going on is just endless tug-of-war, at *best*. The politics and economics of capitalism isn't really being challenged in any of these regions.

The benefits of CCP to the rural area is duly noted, but applying that way everywhere, and especially somewhere which has seen other (arguably) better ways is not going to end well. Not to mention there are still inequalities to the rural area.

As for the class struggle issue, my view is that many don't have such a grand mind like you do. I'd say leave them alone as much as we can. Also, there are people who are not capitalists but still find capitalism do more good than harm to them. At least for the time being, most alternatives are either worse or a disguise of some bad form of capitalism.

Back to the topic, I do agree that the West have been treating the areas like Middle East wrongly throughout the last few decades if not centuries. As I said, they should have treated them like "HK before the handover" and when locals take over they shouldn't have used the rulers like vassals or collaborators. I take your point that "they have no incentive to do that" but as we see, there ARE examples that there could be an incentive and that "locals are consistently worse because of the hastiness of the retreat and the spite left behind in their mind".

To be kind, I think the implementation of your ideals has to be led by example and start with the West. If it is successful then others will naturally follow. Imposing it on anti-West countries in hope of using them to crush Western capitalism is not gonna work because of the points I have mentioned above.

In this sense, my ideals of Western domination does not necessarily conflict with yours.

[ckaihatsu]

The benefits of CCP to the rural area is duly noted, but applying that way everywhere, and especially somewhere which has seen other (arguably) better ways

You're being vague and ahistorical again -- would you care to *specify* an actual area that you may be referring to here?

Please keep in mind that traditional farming is *backbreaking* work, and there's a reason that the advanced capitalist countries like the U.S. do agriculture with *industrial* machinery today -- because it's simply *much more effective*, no matter the geography. Consider this to be your *reality check*.


World Amazing Modern Technology Machines Working - Incredible Agriculture Forestry Machinery

World Amazing Modern Technology Machines Working - Biggest Monster Machinery

---

is not going to end well. Not to mention there are still inequalities to the rural area.

True -- there are inequalities of class *everywhere*.

As for the class struggle issue, my view is that many don't have such a grand mind like you do.

Correct -- such is called 'false consciousness'.

I'd say leave them alone as much as we can.

This is a rather *presumptuous* edict, especially from someone like you who doesn't usually bother to specify geography or history for the vague and abstract treatment that you typically present, of political matters.

Also, there are people who are not capitalists but still find capitalism do more good than harm to them. At least for the time being, most alternatives are either worse or a disguise of some bad form of capitalism.

The West has 'quantitative easing', and China has the 'Belt and Road Initiative'. Neither is 'free-market' capitalism -- both are 'big government', however you slice them.

Back to the topic, I do agree that the West have been treating the areas like Middle East wrongly throughout the last few decades if not centuries. As I said, they should have treated them like "HK before the handover"

So what happened, exactly, during this purported 'golden era', that you champion?

and when locals take over they shouldn't have used the rulers like vassals or collaborators.

What do you mean here? Any examples?

I take your point that "they have no incentive to do that" but as we see, there ARE examples that there could be an incentive and that "locals are consistently worse because of the hastiness of the retreat and the spite left behind in their mind".

More vagueness on your part -- you may want to point to instances in history to bolster whatever political points you're trying to make here.

To be kind, I think the implementation of your ideals has to be led by example and start with the West. If it is successful then others will naturally follow. Imposing it on anti-West countries in hope of using them to crush Western capitalism is not gonna work because of the points I have mentioned above.

In this sense, my ideals of Western domination does not necessarily conflict with yours.

Just came across the following article the other day -- it's a good example, and a good read:

150 years since the Paris Commune

On March 18, 1871, the armed working class districts of Paris rose up and established the first workers state in world history, the Paris Commune.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/0 ... s-m18.html

[QatzelOk]

I mean what Assad does is something that has to happen one way or another.

Let's look at "what Assad does."

He rules Syria independently of the Tribal Interests of Israel and Western CapitalTM.

Because of this, Syria has been destroyed by the West-Israel, and its oil is being stolen.

I think what you mean by "what Assad does" is that Assad makes Western newscasters lower their voices and speak sternly at the dogs who are watching.

As a dog who watches my daily diet of newscasters, looking for direction in life, the lowered voice and stern look leads me to be very suspicious of Assad. And this is why I bark.

"I'm no Assad toady!" exclaims the well-trained man's best friend.

[Patrickov]

Let's look at "what Assad does."

He rules Syria independently of the Tribal Interests of Israel and Western CapitalTM.

Really? I don't believe you.

[ckaihatsu]

Iran says U.S. forces must leave Syria.

Admin edit: Poor quality youtube video replaced with newslink.

[Patrickov]

Iran says U.S. forces must leave Syria.

Frankly, totalitarian nations have no rights to say that, and in some sense they deserve being invaded themselves.

Of course, in Middle East probably few nations deserve sovereignty if at all, and Iran arguably is the second or third most deserving country.
(Consider this like a bunch of countries getting "U" grades, while Iran gets a classified fail grade)

[ckaihatsu]

Frankly, totalitarian nations have no rights to say that, and in some sense they deserve being invaded themselves.

Of course, in Middle East probably few nations deserve sovereignty if at all, and Iran arguably is the second or third most deserving country.
(Consider this like a bunch of countries getting "U" grades, while Iran gets a classified fail grade)

I find the U.S. / NATO destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria to be far more 'totalitarian' than anything Iran has done, but do feel free to let us know what Iran has done that's so bad, according to you.

Name-calling is no basis for imperialist militarist invasions.

[noemon]

Afghanistan had been in civil war since 1996, 5 years before the Americans went in because Pakistan had sent the Taliban to cause trouble in Afghanistan, a similar tactic they regularly deploy against India.

Same story with Syria, Libya and Iraq, all countries were at civil war before the US went in, causing much instability with way too many warring factions and war spilling all over the neighbourhood.

The US was not the only interventionist force in all these countries.

[ckaihatsu]

Afghanistan had been in civil war since 1996,

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan goes back to the '70s and '80s, when the U.S. intervened by backing the mujahideen in the Cold War:

The Soviet–Afghan War was a conflict wherein insurgent groups (known collectively as the Mujahideen), as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a nine-year guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government throughout the 1980s, mostly in the Afghan countryside. The Mujahideen were variously backed primarily by the United States, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Kingdom; the conflict was a Cold War-era proxy war. Between 562,000[43] and 2,000,000 civilians were killed and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees,[44][45][47][48] mostly to Pakistan and Iran. The war caused grave destruction in Afghanistan and is believed to have contributed to the Soviet collapse, in hindsight leaving a mixed legacy to people in both territories.[49][50]

The foundations of the conflict were laid by the Saur Revolution, a 1978 coup wherein Afghanistan's communist party took power, initiating a series of radical modernization and land reforms throughout the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

And:

The origins of al-Qaeda can be traced to the Soviet War in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989).[9] The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan in terms of the Cold War, with Marxists on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen on the other. This view led to a CIA program called Operation Cyclone, which channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the Afghan Mujahideen.[134] The US government provided substantial financial support to the Afghan Islamic militants. Aid to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan mujahideen leader and founder of the Hezb-e Islami, amounted to more than $600 million. In addition to American aid, Hekmatyar was the recipient of Saudi aid.[135] In the early 1990s, after the US had withdrawn support, Hekmatyar "worked closely" with bin Laden.[136]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda# ... fghanistan

---

5 years before the Americans went in because Pakistan had sent the Taliban to cause trouble in Afghanistan, a similar tactic they regularly deploy against India.

You're erroneously making the U.S. sound as though it's been *separate* and *independent* of Pakistan, when that's far from the truth:

[In] the 1980s, the ISI in Operation Cyclone systematically coordinated the distribution of arms and financial means provided by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to factions of the Afghan mujahideen such as the Hezb-e Islami (HeI) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the forces of Ahmad Shah Massoud whose forces would later be known as the Northern Alliance. After the Soviet retreat, the different Mujahideen factions turned on each other and were unable to come to a power sharing deal which resulted in a civil war. The United States, along with the ISI and the Pakistani government of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto became the primary source of support for Hekmatyar in his 1992–1994 bombardment campaign against the Islamic State of Afghanistan and the capital Kabul.

It is widely agreed that after Hekmatyar failed to take over power in Afghanistan, the ISI helped to found the Afghan Taliban. The ISI and other parts of the Pakistan military subsequently provided financial, logistical, military and direct combat support to the Taliban until the September 11 attacks of 2001. It is widely acknowledged that the ISI has given the Afghan Taliban safe havens inside Pakistan and supported the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan after 9/11 helping them, especially the Haqqani network, carry out attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistani officials deny this accusation. Allegations have been raised by international government officials, policy analysts and even Pakistani military officials that the ISI in conjunction with the military leadership has also provided some amount of support and refuge to al-Qaeda. Such allegations were increasingly issued when Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed in 2011 while living in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Ser ... fghanistan

Education

Mullah Mohammad Omar in September 1994 in his hometown of Kandahar with 50 students founded the group.[104][105][106] Omar had since 1992 been studying in the Sang-i-Hisar madrassa in Maiwand (northern Kandahar Province). He was unhappy that Islamic law had not been installed in Afghanistan after the ousting of communist rule, and now with his group pledged to rid Afghanistan of warlords and criminals.[104]

Within months, 15,000 students, often Afghan refugees, from religious schools or madrasas – one source calls them Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run madrasas[105] – in Pakistan joined the group.

The US government covertly provided violent schoolbooks filled with militant Islamic teachings and jihad and images of weapons and soldiers in an effort to inculcate in children anti-Soviet insurgency and hate for foreigners. The Taliban used the American textbooks but scratched out human faces in keeping with strict fundamentalist interpretation. The United States Agency for International Development gave millions of dollars to the University of Nebraska at Omaha in the 1980s to develop and publish the textbooks in local languages.[107]

Motivation

Those early Taliban were motivated by the suffering among the Afghan people, which they believed resulted from power struggles between Afghan groups not adhering to the moral code of Islam; in their religious schools they had been taught a belief in strict Islamic law.[104][54][55]

Pakistani involvement

Sources state that Pakistan was heavily involved, already in October 1994, in the "creating" of the Taliban.[108][109] Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), strongly supporting the Taliban in 1994, hoped for a new ruling power in Afghanistan favourable to Pakistan.[104]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Education

---

Same story with Syria, Libya and Iraq, all countries were at civil war before the US went in, causing much instability with way too many warring factions and war spilling all over the neighbourhood.

The US was not the only interventionist force in all these countries.

If you mean Iraq from 2003-2011, here's the entry description for the 'Iraq War', that says that that "civil war" began strictly *due* to the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

Iraq War (2003–11), a war that began with the U.S. invasion of Iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_civil_war

---


The U.S. / NATO invasions of Libya were entirely about getting at the oil, using militaristic means.

After the Arab Spring movements overturned the rulers of Tunisia and Egypt, Libya experienced a full-scale revolt beginning on 17 February 2011.[77] Libya's authoritarian regime led by Muammar Gaddafi put up much more of a resistance compared to the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia. While overthrowing the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia was a relatively quick process, Gaddafi's campaign posed significant stalls on the uprisings in Libya.[78] The first announcement of a competing political authority appeared online and declared the Interim Transitional National Council as an alternative government. One of Gaddafi's senior advisors responded by posting a tweet, wherein he resigned, defected, and advised Gaddafi to flee.[79] By 20 February, the unrest had spread to Tripoli. On 27 February 2011, the National Transitional Council was established to administer the areas of Libya under rebel control. On 10 March 2011, France became the first state to officially recognise the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.[80][81]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Fir ... _Civil_War

Post-Gaddafi era and the Second Libyan Civil War

Main articles: Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan Civil War and Libyan Civil War (2014–2020)

Since the defeat of loyalist forces, Libya has been torn among numerous rival, armed militias affiliated with distinct regions, cities and tribes, while the central government has been weak and unable effectively to exert its authority over the country. Competing militias have pitted themselves against each other in a political struggle between Islamist politicians and their opponents.[96] On 7 July 2012, Libyans held their first parliamentary elections since the end of the former regime. On 8 August 2012, the National Transitional Council officially handed power over to the wholly elected General National Congress, which was then tasked with the formation of an interim government and the drafting of a new Libyan Constitution to be approved in a general referendum.[97]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Pos ... _Civil_War

Regarding *Syria*, the circumstances were similar to that of Libya:

The unrest in Syria, which began on 15 March 2011 as part of the wider 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Syrian government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for Assad's removal were violently suppressed.[108][109][110] The war is being fought by several factions: the Syrian Armed Forces and its domestic and international allies, a loose alliance of mostly Sunni opposition rebel groups (such as the Free Syrian Army), Salafi jihadist groups (including al-Nusra Front and Tahrir al-Sham), the mixed Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). A number of foreign countries, such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey, and the United States, have either directly involved themselves in the conflict or provided support to one or another faction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

What *all* of these conflicts have in common is the use of the term 'civil war' as a *misnomer* -- the term 'civil war' implies some kind of *internal*, or domestic, conflict, when, in the cases of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there was immediate *international involvement*, meaning *invasions* and interventions by proxy, so such are really *Cold War*-type conflicts. Some would argue that the post-World-War-II 'Cold War' never really ended, and that 'great power' geopolitical warfare has continued unabated in countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the decades of the '90s onward.

[noemon]

the U.S. sound as though it's been *separate*

The US cannot be separate from anything being the pre-eminent military power at the apex of its power.

It does not justify the lack of civic organisation by these countries due to tyrannical & corrupt regimes.

Blaming the US for problems that exist because the natives have not figured out the solutions is no excuse.

It's just scapegoating.

[ckaihatsu]

The US cannot be separate from anything being the pre-eminent military power at the apex of its power.

It can certainly *try* -- it did get out of Vietnam, eventually, so there's a precedent there.

It does not justify the lack of civic organisation by these countries due to tyrannical & corrupt regimes.

This is apples-and-oranges, though -- no one's waving any flags for tyrannical and corrupt regimes.

That said, there's a distinct difference between *popular* / populist uprisings, and the militaristic interventions of NATO-backed proxies, like the FSA in Syria.

If the *people* of a country overthrow a dictator, like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, those are legitimately democratic actions. When Western *militaries* piggyback on populist uprisings to send in their militaries, or militarist *proxies*, then that's no longer about the popular will of that particular country.

Blaming the US for problems that exist because the natives have not figures out the solutions is no excuse.

It's just scapegoating.

Scapegoating is the act of choosing an innocent, uninvolved personage to deride for problems elsewhere -- I'm not *doing* that. The U.S. and NATO militaries have *been* involved in the Middle East, horrendously, since 2001, and I'm recounting their actual *invasions* of foreign countries for Cold-War-imperialist geopolitical reasons.

[noemon]

This is apples-and-oranges, though -- no one's waving any flags for tyrannical and corrupt regimes.

You are, you 're blaming foreigners, the US in this case for the destruction of countries destroyed by their own warlords, and it's boring propaganda with no basis in reality:

That said, there's a distinct difference between *popular* / populist uprisings, and the militaristic interventions of NATO-backed proxies, like the FSA in Syria.

If the *people* of a country overthrow a dictator, like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, those are legitimately democratic actions. When Western *militaries* piggyback on populist uprisings to send in their militaries, or militarist *proxies*, then that's no longer about the popular will of that particular country.

You 're confused, countries that are ruled by warlords who terrorise their own domain as well as their neighbourhoods forgo any sovereignty.

Scapegoating is the act of choosing an innocent, uninvolved personage to deride for problems elsewhere -- I'm not *doing* that. The U.S. and NATO militaries have *been* involved in the Middle East, horrendously, since 2001, and I'm recounting their actual *invasions* of foreign countries for Cold-War-imperialist geopolitical reasons.

Scapegoating has nothing to do with an innocent, once again your claim is absurd. A scapegoat does not need to be an angel to be the scapegoat.

Your boring nonsense have been told in here like a gospel for the past 20 years. It's worthless & uninteresting.

Your claim that it is the US to blame for the destruction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq is false. The US intervened to protect its interests as per regular custom when you are the global hegemon. But the destruction of these countries was not caused by the US, they were destroying themselves since before the US intervened.

Using the US as a scapegoat merely distracts from the reality that with or without US intervention countries with unresolved issues still remain so and that is on them and not on anyone else.