nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Was Egypt, Iraq, Libya etc better off living under a dictator?

BattleCorp

Now I know I don't live there and haven't lived under any of the previous regimes, but it looks to me like most of the Arab Spring countries were better places to live under their dictators than they are now.

Iraq, Libya and Egypt and other such places have turned into one big sh1tfcuk. Civil war everywhere in the region. One hell of a mess and no sign of it stopping for years to come.

Hundreds of thousands dead and millions on the run for somewhere safe to live.

There'll be a never ending civil war in that part of the world.

And as has been shown in Egypt, when you throw out one dictator, you get a new democratically elected dictator in his place, who then has to be fcuked out so back to square one.

So, am I alone in thinking that those countries were better off with a dictator keeping order and stopping Shia's from killing Sunni's and vice versa?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wacker The Attacker

Yes

SafeSurfer

Ask somebody that has lived under both regimes. Not a bunch of mainly middle class irish people.

old_aussie

Yes, They need to be ruled by an "Iron Fist" otherwise they descend into tribal anarchy.

As they have done!

Karl Stein

No FFS.

old_aussie

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Ask somebody that has lived under both regimes. Not a bunch of mainly middle class irish people.

I'm neither, so does that make me entitled to have an opinion?

Gilbert Grape

And who say's they were living under a dictator??Brainwashing seems to be working so far on those who think that..

Rightwing

Complicated question.

It will take time. Problem is, you can't go from dictator to democracy like flicking a light switch,,,,,are you listening Obama et al ?

BattleCorp

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

No FFS.

I think I'd rather live under a sh1te oppressive government and keep my head down rather that the slaughter that is going on over there now (with no sign of it stopping any time soon for that matter).

shedweller

BattleCorp wrote: »

And as has been shown in Egypt, when you throw out one dictator, you get a new democratically elected dictator in his place....

A leader who will do whatever those that started the war wants done. Like oil pipelines. I'd have more respect for these feckers if they just came out and said "look, we just want the oil, ok?" and just took it.
Don't kid yourself; there's nobody here shooting the hell out of everything like the middle east. Thats because theres feck all here worth going to war over. The only reason anyone is fighting in the middle east is because of oil.

Piliger

This **** takes a while. People jumping to all kinds of idiotic claims about which is better need to learn a bit about history. What would irish people have said between 1916 and 1922 ? Yet it all worked out fine. Same for dozens of other countries.
Egypt are doing well imho. The people have woken up and driving the process with the help of the army. I see a bright future.

YFlyer

etc what?

Dj Grimreefer

The only one thats benifits most in all of this is America,

Lybia was because Gadaffi wanted to trade his oil for gold not USD,
Iraq "weapons of mass destcruction" ha ha great intel there but thats was just an excuse to go to war to get oil
Afgan was about the countries minerals just so happend they found a huge lithium vein there.

so from my point of view America is just trying to secure resources for the near future,

if it was all really about the people then why don't America help the starving? America will only go into something to benifit themselfs

shedweller

Piliger wrote: »

This **** takes a while. People jumping to all kinds of idiotic claims about which is better need to learn a bit about history. What would irish people have said between 1916 and 1922 ? Yet it all worked out fine. Same for dozens of other countries.
Egypt are doing well imho. The people have woken up and driving the process with the help of the army. I see a bright future.

Sure, only Ireland didn't get hosed with depleted uranium with a half life of 4.5 billion years and is still causing birth defects after the first gulf war.
And we are throwing countless euros to private bondholders to pay them back the losses they made from gambles they took. We are not doing ok at all. This is alongside all the crap thats happening in the country like roads, hospitals etc.
We bitched no end about how much the port tunnel cost yet we are and will continue to pay many times more into a black hole with nothing gained out of it. Propping up a bank system does not constitute gaining something either. That should prop itself up and work for us. Not the other way around.

Elmer Blooker

old_aussie wrote: »

Yes, They need to be ruled by an "Iron Fist" otherwise they descend into tribal anarchy.

As they have done!

True, remember Yugoslavia? Tito was a hardline dictator who held the country together but after he died the place fell apart and saw the worst conflict in Europe since WW2.

dd972

The West installed and supported all the old regimes, for instance, Saddam Hussain, the Shah of Iran, the Saudi state.

As long as Uncle Sam and capitalism has anything to do with it ordinary folk in these regions will never be allowed to figure out their own way of doing things.

realweirdo

Egypt never really shook off dictatorship so its an academic question. The military have always run the country. Mubarak was just their puppet. When Morsi started to get to big for his own good, they took him out. Whoever is "elected" as the next president will also be no more than a puppet of the military.

As for Iraq, there was always going to be a civil war after the proto-typical strongman Saddam was taken out as people jockied for position.

Regards Syria, litterly anything is better than living under a mass murdering gas using psychopath like Assad, a modern day Hitler.

In Libya, yes most people are glad Gadaffi is gone, even though they are still some concerns about security. still a big inprovement on life under Gadaffi.

Sunglasses Ron

Dj Grimreefer wrote: »

Afgan was about the countries minerals just so happend they found a huge lithium vein there.

Yeah.

Nothing to do with those towers falling or whatever, eh :rolleyes:

Swan Curry

Straight after Ireland became independent,there was a civil war.When the country recovered from that,it allowed the Catholic Church to rape and abuse children for decades,and went through various recessions.

I wonder do the people that think these states are better off with dictators think Ireland should have been handed back to the UK?

HighClass

Swan Curry wrote: »

Straight after Ireland became independent,there was a civil war.When the country recovered from that,it allowed the Catholic Church to rape and abuse children for decades,and went through various recessions.

I wonder do the people that think these states are better off with dictators think Ireland should have been handed back to the UK?

We'd probably be better off if we stayed with the UK tbh.

Dj Grimreefer

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Yeah.

Nothing to do with those towers falling or whatever, eh :rolleyes:

we'll never really know about the towers I still think it was a false flag event to get the ball rolling, too much suspicious trading and stuff prior to the attack, also they happened to be running a military traning excerise about the exact sernario that was about to happen.

so a few thousand died in 9/11, does that mean hundreds of thousands should die as a result?

PhlegmyMoses

When it comes to Iran, they would have been better to not ever end up under the Ayatollah Khomeini. They seemed to have been really starting to flourish in their attitudes and economically, then he and his religious nut buddies came along and set the country back 100 years minimum.

Riddle101

Dj Grimreefer wrote: »

The only one thats benifits most in all of this is America,

Lybia was because Gadaffi wanted to trade his oil for gold not USD,
Iraq "weapons of mass destcruction" ha ha great intel there but thats was just an excuse to go to war to get oil
Afgan was about the countries minerals just so happend they found a huge lithium vein there.

so from my point of view America is just trying to secure resources for the near future,

if it was all really about the people then why don't America help the starving? America will only go into something to benifit themselfs

Libya under Gadaffi has been an enemy of the United States since he first came to power. When the Civil War started, the US seized the opportunity to take out one of their opponents. Not saying it was great thing to do, but if the US was that worried about Oil they would have invaded them years ago. It's not like Libya and US have ever been friends you know. They struck when they saw an opportunity.

The US never got Oil nor could they get oil from their invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion, Iraq's oil was nationalized with Russia, China and France having contracts. The US and the UK never got contracts however, and the UN wouldn't allow them. There's no way the US could have taken oil without causing an international incident with Russia or China etc. I will say however that after the US invaded, they tried to put pressure on Iraq to allow them to extract but I don't believe the legislation that was put forward was passed. My personal opinion of Iraq, is that George Bush jnr was trying to complete his father's work. The first Gulf War started in the early 90's when George Bush snr was in power, and while Iraq was never invaded they remained enemies of the US ever since. I think it was just old grudges the caused the second Gulf War.

As for Afghanistan. The Taliban were in power before the Invasion. Originally they were Allies with the US but after they came to power they distanced themselves from the US, but they still continued to do business with them. The Taliban negotiated with Unocal for a gas pipeline in Afghanistan but the deal fell through. Unocal(which is American based) withdrew. After that the relationship between the US and the Taliban continued to diminish. After the US Embassy bombings Afghanistan refused to extradite Bin Laden, who would later be the mastermind of Sept 11th 2001. When 9/11 happened, it was a very tense period for the US. The public was outraged and wanted revenge against the people who did it, which was quite understandable. It was believed he Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time as he operated in the region. The Taliban also refused to extradite Bin Laden again. That's what I believe led to the invasion. By going to Afghanistan they killed two birds with one stone. Capture Bin Laden, and oust the Taliban from power.

Either way, there's a lot more to it then just oil or resources. While i've no doubt the US cares about resources, there's more to it then just that I think. But the US doesn't seem to learn form history.

jank

In some ways this is a valid question. Some regions are not ready for democracy and they can only free themselves.

Nodin

old_aussie wrote: »

I'm neither, so does that make me entitled to have an opinion?

No, as you've a history of bigoted comments against muslims.

--Kaiser--

I'd much rather have live in the secular dictarorship that was old Iraq than the war torn hell hole it is now

bizmark

Nodin wrote: »

No, as you've a history of bigoted comments against muslims.

Funny basically think the same about you everytime someone hits the emergency "racism" hotline and nodin comes in to spew his tired words of wisdom on the subject :rolleyes:

Either that or dismissing peoples view points like a good enlightened solider of boards like the above quote

Keep fighting the good fight man your blinkered only my opinion and view points on a subject are the valid ones are a credit to you and debate through out boards

thehamo

I heard North Korea is lovely this time of year

bnt

For a well-rounded view on this idea, I recommend folks listen to Roger Scruton's "Point of View" podcasts on the BBC, "Of the People, By the People". (4 parts, about 11 mins each.)

Basically, I agree with him that Democracy alone is not enough. The primary way that Morsi's Egypt failed was in its treatment of political opponents. That's like a litmus test for Democracy, and one of the catalysts of the recent coup was the Muslim Brotherhood crackdown on other political parties and Christian churches.

Any democratically-elected government has to accept that they aren't going to get everything they want. Even fundamental party promises can be derailed by politcal opposition. If you've seen even one episode of The West Wing, that much should be obvious. Only Totalitarians seriously expect to exert total control over a country.

UCDVet

To be honest, I can't say I'd care who was running the country. Call it a dictatorship, call it democracy, whatever. At the end of the day, I feel like I have no control over what the government does. Pass a law, I'll shut up and follow it. I have a life, a family, a job - I'm not ready to put my life on the line to rise up against some B.S. tax.

It doesn't make one bit of difference to me.

What I care about is how safe my family is, whether or not I can get to work without being killed, if I can find a job, etc, etc...most people are happy to give up freedom and liberty in exchange for these things.

Fly into the US to visit and look at the ridiculous lengths people will put up with for a (false?) sense of security.

I don't care if a rich dictator lives in luxury. It's hardly any different from an elected official with ridiculous pay and lifetime salaries/pensions. Historically, it seems like all forms of governments have managed to do some really horrible things, the US is a democracy and that doesn't stop them from violating international rules of war or invading other countries on a whim. Look at how many democracies allowed slavery, as an example.

shane9689

UCDVet wrote: »

To be honest, I can't say I'd care who was running the country. Call it a dictatorship, call it democracy, whatever. At the end of the day, I feel like I have no control over what the government does. Pass a law, I'll shut up and follow it. I have a life, a family, a job - I'm not ready to put my life on the line to rise up against some B.S. tax.

It doesn't make one bit of difference to me.

What I care about is how safe my family is, whether or not I can get to work without being killed, if I can find a job, etc, etc...most people are happy to give up freedom and liberty in exchange for these things.

Fly into the US to visit and look at the ridiculous lengths people will put up with for a (false?) sense of security.

I don't care if a rich dictator lives in luxury. It's hardly any different from an elected official with ridiculous pay and lifetime salaries/pensions. Historically, it seems like all forms of governments have managed to do some really horrible things, the US is a democracy and that doesn't stop them from violating international rules of war or invading other countries on a whim. Look at how many democracies allowed slavery, as an example.

but thats the thing, your job will suck balls, your famaily wont be safe and walking to work will still be dangerous...thats why dictatorships dont work, because that fat guy at the top doesnt have to care...whilst under democracy, they may still be fat cats but atleast they have to pay more attention to whats going on at the bottom level otherwise theyre out.