Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene
Options
Comments
-
The Corinthian wrote: »1. Strawman argument. I never said democracy is an appeal to emotion. I said his posts are little more than appeals to emotion. And it's called an appeal to emotion, not 'the' emotion, so you clearly don't actually know what it is. Feel free to educate yourself.
2. Another, partial, strawman argument. I never said the people of Libya don't deserve democracy. I have said that they are very unlikely to attain it because of various reasons that I listed earlier. Thus unless you want to rebut those, I have given reasons, despite your claim to the contrary.
Again, most western countries have faced and overcome these issues, they are not unique to Libya. They are no barrier to democracy, as has been proven0 -
No one has suggested that they are not human just like us (yet another strawman), but it is utter arrogance to presume that they desire the same things as us. Even within the West there are differences in what people value, desire or what we prioritize.They are human just like us, therefore they desire the same things as us.
Unless you hadn't noticed in many of these countries, they don't share our desire for the same things. Why does religious fundamentalism receive popular support - after all, it does not amongst us? This alone should demonstrate to you your deeply flawed presumption.
Actually the two go hand in hand. We did not first develop a free, open society and then changed our views, instead we gradually changed our views, and with that changed how we governed ourselves incrementally. So, I'm afraid your theory that we can put the cart before the horse doesn't survive long when the facts are examined.A free, open society will help foster independent thought and gradually their views on fgm etc. will change, as they have in other countries.
Sure. Eventually. But sticking our noses in there and interfering on the basis some of the false presumptions you've proffered isn't going to help them do so.There's nothing special about western people. We enjoy a good standard of living and freedom that others can achieve. Freedom and prosperity are universal desires, culture is secondary
I responded to this point of yours already. Stop repeating the same discredited nonsense or at least make an effort to respond to counterpoints made. This is a discussion, not an opportunity for you to practice a written form of public speaking.Again, most western countries have faced and overcome these issues, they are not unique to Libya. They are no barrier to democracy, as has been proven0 -
There is nothing arrogant about democratically electing government. Frankly, the results speak for themselves.
So let the Libyans introduce democracy then. NATO forcing its agenda on a section of people in Libya has caused more misery to date. If democracy is the real will of the people then they must attain it for themselves. Who are the WEST to try and force the issue?0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »No one has suggested that they are not human just like us (yet another strawman), but it is utter arrogance to presume that they desire the same things as us. Even within the West there are differences in what people value, desire or what we prioritize.
Unless you hadn't noticed in many of these countries, they don't share our desire for the same things. Why does religious fundamentalism receive popular support - after all, it does not amongst us? This alone should demonstrate to you your deeply flawed presumption.
Actually the two go hand in hand. We did not first develop a free, open society and then changed our views, instead we gradually changed our views, and with that changed how we governed ourselves incrementally. So, I'm afraid your theory that we can put the cart before the horse doesn't survive long when the facts are examined.
Sure. Eventually. But sticking our noses in there and interfering on the basis some of the false presumptions you've proffered isn't going to help them do so.
I responded to this point of yours already. Stop repeating the same discredited nonsense or at least make an effort to respond to counterpoints made. This is a discussion, not an opportunity for you to practice a written form of public speaking.
No need for the hostile tone.
Again, everyone desires peace, freedom etc. These are fundamental desires and no amount of culture can change that. Therefore they do share our desire for the same things. Dictatorships should always be oppossed, they are a dead end.0 -
So let the Libyans introduce democracy then. NATO forcing its agenda on a section of people in Libya has caused more misery to date. If democracy is the real will of the people then they must attain it for themselves. Who are the WEST to try and force the issue?
Fair enough. I don't see any value in dictatorships, so maybe that's where im going wrong0 -
Advertisement
-
No need to ignore points that are made against your arguments.No need for the hostile tone.
And again you ignore every single point made and revert to parroting out the same tired clichés.Again, everyone desires peace, freedom etc. These are fundamental desires and no amount of culture can change that. Therefore they do share our desire for the same things. Dictatorships should always be oppossed, they are a dead end.0 -
-
The Corinthian wrote: »No need to ignore points that are made against your arguments.
And again you ignore every single point made and revert to parroting out the same tired clichés.
What points?
That Libyans can't handle democracy? That dictatorships are safer? Condescending nonsense.0 -
-
... That are protected by democracies...I dont see how freedom is better obtained in a dictatorship. It's inherently un-free.
Democracy is overwhelmingly the better option. All of the most successful countries are democratic. Many of the worst are dictatorships.
Algeria. Palestine. Egypt. Three very good reasons for Islamists to have zero faith in democracy tm.
You've just reminded me of an article I read this week written by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. http://non-intervention.com/1277/face-facts-u-s-democracy-crusading-causes-wars-its-time-for-american-neutrality/All of these wars and near-wars have been brought to us by the contemporary American and European believers in Woodrow Wilson’s academic theorizing and ignorance of of the world outside the American South. Wilson also was a profound bigot who was as cock-sure as today’s most ardent racists in Western capitals that he could and should force Slavs, Africans, Latinos, and Arabs to behave as he wanted them to behave, either through eloquent persuasion or gunboats and the Marines’ bayoneted rifles.
The Founders did not create the United States to act as Wilson and his policies have acted; that is, as the catalyst that foments unnecessary wars. But a catalyst for war is exactly what our bipartisan political elite has been for the last thirty years and more.
The sad truth is that many of our politicians, diplomats, generals, and religious leaders are war-causers. None will leave well enough alone; none trust foreigners to work out their own futures; and none seem to care how much the unnecessary wars they cause will cost Americans in lives, dollars, and affection/respect.
These men and women take it as their righteous mission to intervene in the affairs of others and work to make them into people just like themselves, whether in terms of worshiping secular democracy, self-determination, women’s rights, religious tolerance, human rights, or some other one-size-fits-all abstraction that no young American man or woman should ever be called on to fight and die for overseas.0 -
Advertisement
-
The country has great potential if given the chance
The country (Libya) had far greater potential pre the U.N/E.U intervention.
To have managed to get Libya and it's multi-facted,tribal populace to a place where it had NO Famine issues,functional education systems ,functional health and functional transport systems and was about to embark upon the most fundemental alteration of it's fiscal base is,in our terms virtually Impossible to comprehend.....not to mention the imminence of it's own Satellite Communications (IMO..THE straw that broke the Western Camel's back)
At best,our native mores would have allowed the setting up of several multi-agency Task-Forces (all unarmed) to discuss the challenges etc etc.
Yet,our accepted wisdom in relation to Gadaffi,is that he was Mad,Bad,Evil,Despotic and,of course a Mass Murderer.
Yet,even in the final months,actual evidence of his regime's restraint and attempts to conciliate are somewhat more prevalent than actual evidence of these atrocities.
Prior to the U.N.-E.U.-NATO intervention,Gadaffi was dealing robustly,savagely,cruelly with yet another insurrection,the latest of many which his rule had faced over it's 40 year history.
Without the U.N/NATO intervention,I suggest that Gadaffi would have suppressed this rebellion also,sure by means which we,from our comfortable superior vantagepoints would deem to be unacceptable,but from the standpoint of the region itself,almost expected from the sitting tenant in Government.
What the U.N/NATO intervention did,particularly the U.S. Inspired decision to dismantle Libyan Government finances,rendering the Country ungovernable,was to take away ALL choice from Libyan citizens...either favour Gadaffi,and starve,or embrace the New (Sponsored) Revolutionary Order and get access to $'s in order to survive.
Instead the "Ordinary" Libyan has been left with this scenario in which to spend his new $.....
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/07/did-the-war-in-libya-prove-the-interventionists-right-or-wrong/375211/
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Analysis-Libya-closer-to-full-civil-war-354993
I believe that the 2011 U.N/NATO intervention has set the ability of Libya to be a front-line African power-broker back by as much as a Century,which is most likely what the game-plan was to begin with.
It was a very clear warning to any other Potential Leaders waiting in the wings....Know your place...and for sure..recognize OUR limits beyond which you shall not proceed.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »... That are protected by democracies...
Algeria. Palestine. Egypt. Three very good reasons for Islamists to have zero faith in democracy tm.
You've just reminded me of an article I read this week written by Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit. http://non-intervention.com/1277/face-facts-u-s-democracy-crusading-causes-wars-its-time-for-american-neutrality/
Human rights, self-determination, religious tolerance etc. are universal and positive things. There is no such thing as a country unfit to strive for these0 -
To have managed to get Libya and it's multi-facted,tribal populace to a place where it had NO Famine issues,functional education systems ,functional health and functional transport systems and was about to embark upon the most fundemental alteration of it's fiscal base is,in our terms virtually Impossible to comprehend.....not to mention the imminence of it's own Satellite Communications (IMO..THE straw that broke the Western Camel's back)
Many countries around the world had these issues, or far worse, and overcame them. Libya doesn't merit special praise for avoiding famine0 -
I fully agree with The Corinthian here. Arab societies are fundamentally not like western societies. I live in Dubai and this is acutely obvious, and from my perspective, depressing, because I think the west is a superior society in terms of rationalism and human rights.
One key difference, I think, is that western societies are basically individualistic, whereas a great many other societies are corporatist or communitarian. Huntington had the right of it to some degree.0 -
I fully agree with The Corinthian here. Arab societies are fundamentally not like western societies. I live in Dubai and this is acutely obvious, and from my perspective, depressing, because I think the west is a superior society in terms of rationalism and human rights.
One key difference, I think, is that western societies are basically individualistic, whereas a great many other societies are corporatist or communitarian. Huntington had the right of it to some degree.
Societies change and develop continuously. I presume by arab you mean muslim dominated countries? Because race has nothing to do with this.0 -
Like the actual points I repeatedly linked to rather than your trite and inaccurate summation.What points?
That Libyans can't handle democracy? That dictatorships are safer? Condescending nonsense.
For example, you claim that there's no reason Libya could follow our example and adopt democracy, to which I pointed out that our example took centuries of incremental changes in both our views, hand-in-hand, with how we governed ourselves. You failed to address that.
Also the point that Libya, like many countries in the developing World, is ill-equipped to move easily to democracy, given a lack of democratic historical tradition (all Western nations that became democratic, as I pointed out, did so after centuries of this tradition building) and is plagued with much stronger influences such as tribalism and religious fundamentalism, both of which are largely absent in Western society. You deftly ignored that point also.
You may consider inconvenient points to be condescending to you, but I personally consider someone who repeatedly ignores arguments and instead repeats the same mantra to be condescending in the extreme and indicative of someone who's here only to soapbox their views with little interest in discussing whether their views hold any water in the first place.
And there we have the same now nauseatingly oft-repeated strawman argument.Human rights, self-determination, religious tolerance etc. are universal and positive things. There is no such thing as a country unfit to strive for these
You do understand no one has suggested that Libya is unfit to strive for human rights, self-determination, religious tolerance, and so on. You're the only one suggesting this.
What is being argued is that they are likely not at a point where they can realistically achieve them in the near future and given this may be better off with autocracy than anarchy - unless, of course, you believe they are better off dead than living under a dictatorship.
So please stop with the strawmen. Please read what points are actually made in this discussion. Please stop just repeating yourself, as if what you're saying wasn't already rebutted pages ago.
We have democracy largely because we began to turn from dogma and twoards reason with the Enlightenment centuries ago - I suggest you try doing likewise.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Like the actual points I repeatedly linked to rather than your trite and inaccurate summation.
For example, you claim that there's no reason Libya could follow our example and adopt democracy, to which I pointed out that our example took centuries of incremental changes in both our views, hand-in-hand, with how we governed ourselves. You failed to address that.
Also the point that Libya, like many countries in the developing World, is ill-equipped to move easily to democracy, given a lack of democratic historical tradition (all Western nations that became democratic, as I pointed out, did so after centuries of this tradition building) and is plagued with much stronger influences such as tribalism and religious fundamentalism, both of which are largely absent in Western society. You deftly ignored that point also.
You may consider inconvenient points to be condescending to you, but I personally consider someone who repeatedly ignores arguments and instead repeats the same mantra to be condescending in the extreme and indicative of someone who's here only to soapbox their views with little interest in discussing whether their views hold any water in the first place.
And there we have the same now nauseatingly oft-repeated strawman argument.
You do understand no one has suggested that Libya is unfit to strive for human rights, self-determination, religious tolerance, and so on. You're the only one suggesting this.
What is being argued is that they are likely not at a point where they can realistically achieve them in the near future and given this may be better off with autocracy than anarchy - unless, of course, you believe they are better off dead than living under a dictatorship.
So please stop with the strawmen. Please read what points are actually made in this discussion. Please stop just repeating yourself, as if what you're saying wasn't already rebutted pages ago.
We have democracy largely because we began to turn from dogma and twoards reason with the Enlightenment centuries ago - I suggest you try doing likewise.
As mentioned, there are many examples of newly formed democracies. Again, it's the 21st century. There are many powerful democratic countries which could be relied on for support and as a example of how to effectively run a country etc. Becoming a democracy has never been easier than it is at present.
Nobody is claiming it will be an easy transition, it rarely is. However, suggesting that Libya, or other arab countries, are better off as dictatorships is wrong. They need to confront their issues head on, not hide behind a strongman for decades.
I'm not sure if they will ever be 'ready' enough for you.0 -
I see you decided to delete your post before I managed to reply to it, but I shan't let it go to waste.
Because not all developing countries are identical, no more than Western countries are. Tunisia lacks the tribalism that Libya (a country composed of three former Ottoman provinces and only created under colonial rule) suffers from, to begin with. This means that they're better equipped to adopt democracy, but at the same time they still have issues that may act against this, such as elements of religious fundamentalism.How has Tunisia held its first free democratic elections?
And, by-the-by, this is not something that we can only find in the developing World. While the West is generally more 'mature' in terms of its adoption of democracy, there are examples where it would suffer from the same problems. Northern Ireland, without either military intervention or financial subvention could well have also collapsed into anarchy, because of simelar problems to Libya.
I find yours retarded, but I do you the courtesy of addressing them.I find your arguments bordering on racist and I've no interest in rebutting them.
Nothing I have argued has anything to do with race. To argue that cultures and morality differs in different parts of the World is hardly racist, unless we've decide to completely deny reality and pretend we live in a homogeneous World, despite all evidence to the contrary.
No, you've no interest in responding because you cannot. Hiding behind spurious accusations of racism is simply a contemptible excuse.
You do understand that we're discussing non-functioning democracies and failed states? Are you suggesting that because a Croatian, in a functioning democracy, does not want to see a return to dictatorship, that a Somalian, in a failed state, would think the same?Yugoslavia tore itself apart in a civil war, yet I don't hear you saying that a dictator is preferred there
If so, you've completely lost the plot.
Sure. Look at all the intervention success stories.As mentioned, there are many examples of newly formed democracies. Again, it's the 21st century. There are many powerful democratic countries which could be relied on for support and as a example of how to effectively run a country etc. Becoming a democracy has never been easier than it is at present.
Well, if they fail in this transition and end up back in a dictatorship (as essentially is happening in Iraq). Then I'm afraid they are better off never having left one.Nobody is claiming it will be an easy transition, it rarely is. However, suggesting that Libya, or other arab countries, are better off as dictatorships is wrong.
Yes, they need to. This is what this entire thread is about - our well intentioned, yet disastrously misguided interventions.They need to confront their issues head on, not hide behind a strongman for decades.
That would be because you're not very good at listening and have already arrived at prejudicial and false views regarding mine.I'm not sure if they will ever be 'ready' enough for you.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »
I find yours retarded, but I do you the courtesy of addressing them.
That would be because you're not very good at listening and have already arrived at prejudicial and false views regarding mine.
What's so retarded about thinking dictatorships are bad?
I have listened to your points. You think Libyans should sit it out under a dictatorship indefinitely until tribalism, religous fundamentalism etc. sort themselves out somehow.0 -
What has that got to do with what I just wrote? (hint: absolutely nothing)What's so retarded about thinking dictatorships are bad?
As your first sentence betrays, no. Or at least you can't seem to understand them.I have listened to your points.
Nope. Never said, nor suggested that. You keep on jumping to erroneous conclusions. 1 + 1 is not equal to 5.You think Libyans should sit it out under a dictatorship indefinitely until tribalism, religous fundamentalism etc. sort themselves out somehow.
Sorry no cigar.0 -
Advertisement
-
You suggested that Libya would be better off under a dictatorship0
-
Sigh...You suggested that Libya would be better off under a dictatorship
This discussion is about Western interventions in such places, giving Libya as an example.
So consider you're the guy who gets to decide if we intervene militarily. Analysis at the time pointed to two likely scenarios:
We don't intervene. Gaddafi almost certainly crushes the revolt. Up to 10,000 est. are murdered in reprisals in Misrata and a further 30,000 est. imprisoned. Gaddafi remains in power.
We intervene. Our intervention tips the scales and the revolt succeeds in toppling Gaddafi. 25,000 (actual) killed in the conflict and a further sizeable number of former loyalists, or people unlucky enough to be pinned as such, imprisoned. However, the conditions for democracy are not in place; deep tribal divisions, numerous uncontrolled armed militias, religious fundamentalists in the background and an interim government of limited authority to take over mean that any transition is pretty much doomed.
What is, and was, predicted to follow was a fractured society, with a barely functioning government that eventually breaks down into anarchy. Further casualties, up to 500,000 est. over the next five years.
To top it all off, the most likely conclusion is another autocrat (and/or Islamic fundamentalist group) taking over after a bloody and prolonged campaign. Full circle.
That democracy was highly unlikely to succeed given the circumstances was already well established. That Gaddafi could ride it out if we didn't intervene was also well understood.
So, you tell me; which path would you pick? There's going to be blood on your hands either way, so which would you prefer? Where does your path paved with good intentions lead? If you think that the alternative to dictatorship is always preferable, is it not a good idea to have an idea first of what that alternative is going to be? Because it might turn out that it won't be preferable after all or may even just be another dictatorship.
And if the penny doesn't drop at this stage, I give up.0 -
I deleted it because I've long since forgotten what point you were making, other than some convoluted argument about why a dictatorship would be preferable, simply because a country that emerges from a long period of dictatorship haven't managed to create a perfect democracy overnight.The Corinthian wrote: »I see you decided to delete your post before I managed to reply to it, but I shan't let it go to waste.
You've conveniently ignored Yugoslavia, Spain, Chile, East Timor. It seems to be only Arabs you think are incapable of governing themselves, and as that's the core of your argument I have no comeback.
Someone else was also making some utterly ludicruous argument based on Satellite communications. Or fluoride, or something similar.0 -
I didn't ignore Yugoslavia and my inclusion of Northern Ireland kind of blows your accusation about Arabs out of the water. Any more falsehoods you'd like to add?You've conveniently ignored Yugoslavia, Spain, Chile, East Timor. It seems to be only Arabs you think are incapable of governing themselves, and as that's the core of your argument I have no comeback.0 -
You did ignore Yugoslavia. A tribal nation that tore itself apart in a civil war, with no history of democracy and out of which has come several reasonably well functioning and improving democracies. Or rather, let's ignore the word "democracy", instead let's phrase it as "a political system that reflects the will of the people".The Corinthian wrote: »I didn't ignore Yugoslavia0 -
The whole thing that's happening in Libya was predictable to any sane thinking person as far back as 2011, when America and NATO decided to stick their nose into another country's business.
It's Obama, Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy's mess. They all should be held accountable for it.0 -
Many countries around the world had these issues, or far worse, and overcame them. Libya doesn't merit special praise for avoiding famine
Actually,given it's geography and cultural mix,I'm begging to differ on that...I believe praise is due for managing to keep Libyan citizens some of the healthiest,best educated and self-reliant in the region.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Sigh...
This discussion is about Western interventions in such places, giving Libya as an example.
So consider you're the guy who gets to decide if we intervene militarily. Analysis at the time pointed to two likely scenarios:
We don't intervene. Gaddafi almost certainly crushes the revolt. Up to 10,000 est. are murdered in reprisals in Misrata and a further 30,000 est. imprisoned. Gaddafi remains in power.
We intervene. Our intervention tips the scales and the revolt succeeds in toppling Gaddafi. 25,000 (actual) killed in the conflict and a further sizeable number of former loyalists, or people unlucky enough to be pinned as such, imprisoned. However, the conditions for democracy are not in place; deep tribal divisions, numerous uncontrolled armed militias, religious fundamentalists in the background and an interim government of limited authority to take over mean that any transition is pretty much doomed....
.....That democracy was highly unlikely to succeed given the circumstances was already well established. That Gaddafi could ride it out if we didn't intervene was also well understood.
So, you tell me; which path would you pick? There's going to be blood on your hands either way, so which would you prefer? Where does your path paved with good intentions lead? If you think that the alternative to dictatorship is always preferable, is it not a good idea to have an idea first of what that alternative is going to be? Because it might turn out that it won't be preferable after all or may even just be another dictatorship.
And if the penny doesn't drop at this stage, I give up.
My own belief,having watched the earlier stages of the insurrection developing,is that the Gadaffi regime would have suppressed the rebellion,but at a far lower casualty figure than is often suggested.
Gadaffi,for all of his much publicised madness,badness and bloodthirstyness never really managed to match the hype associated with him.
Libyan regime atrocities,as some undoubtedly were,tended to be in double figures with even the infamous 1995 Abu Salim prison massacre resulting in a maximum of 1,200 dead,injured or missing.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/libya-urged-thoroughly-investigate-1996-mass-prison-killings-2010-06-29
Yet,as recently as 2010 Amnesty were supportive of the Libyan Government's stated intentions to move forward from these events....
"A few years ago, Libya was a closed country under international sanctions and human rights abuses took place in a climate of secrecy and isolation," said Amnesty International.
"The country is now playing a much greater international role, and was elected to the UN Human Rights Council in May. If Libya is to have any credibility, the country should thoroughly investigate these past human rights abuses and punish those responsible.
The U.N/NATO action effectively ended that possibility,whilst engineering the spiral of post-rebellion slaughter outlined by Corinthian.
All blithely explained away by the concerns of the "alliance" for the ordinary Libyan Citizen,concerns which now appear far less pressing when the killings come from the return of tribal faction fighting virtually absent during the previous 40 years....democracy in action ?
I did'nt buy it at the time,and I'm still not buying it today,thank you all the same.Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Nope. I pointed out that you were comparing the attitudes of someone where democracy took hold and the violence that it took to get there is now history, against someone where democracy has not taken hold and is unlikely to do so.You did ignore Yugoslavia.
Instead, if you are living somewhere where the rule of law has all but broken down, and you're faced with daily violence, power cuts, food shortages and the like, you'll find quite a bit of nostalgia for 'the old days'.
About six years ago I was in Sarajevo (where I suspect you've never been) and a Bosnian colleague mooted to me that things were better under the old system - and they even have a pretty stable democracy. Even in Western Europe you'll come across this; in Italy, during the seventies and the chaos wrought by the Red Brigades, it was not unusual to hear, especially older people, comments how "this wouldn't have happened if HE was still around" and Franco still commands strong elements of nostalgia, in many quarters, in Spain, especially at present.
So just because you cannot conceve that people would not want to see dictatorship return, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and the more desperate the circumstances they live in, the more people like this that you find.
Of course, if you're living in a well functioning, affluent, democracy you're not going to hear such comments, so it's an easy point for you to make. But in doing so you're making the typical arrogant, Western, middle-class, mistake of viewing it from your perspective, not the perspective of those who actually live in the place in question.
Don't get me wrong; if intervention actually helped such nations achieve lasting democracy, I'm all for it. But as we can see in Libya and Iraq, all it has achieved is a period of suffering until they eventually settle into another autocratic regime.
And why? Because middle-class Westerners, who know nothing about these places or their society, like you, feel better about themselves in having done something. They, on the other hand, are the ones who are left to pay the price for your peace of mind.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »
About six years ago I was in Sarajevo (where I suspect you've never been)
But in doing so you're making the typical arrogant, Western, middle-class, mistake of viewing it from your perspective, not the perspective of those who actually live in the place in question.
And why? Because middle-class Westerners, who know nothing about these places or their society, like you, feel better about themselves in having done something. They, on the other hand, are the ones who are left to pay the price for your peace of mind.
Glad we have someone as grounded as you to set us straight.
I don't know where you're pulling this middle-class Westerner thing from. Bordering on soapbox territory.0
Advertisement