When will the International Community stop being so biased?

Jeremy Harris21 said:Go ahead, the floor is yours.

Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

👍

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

Plus there's the fact you don't actually live there. You shouldn't judge a situation like this until you've been born into it and lived through it.
In any dictatorship out there, it’s up to the people to overthrow them if they actually care enough to do it.
Besides, foreign intervention hasn't exactly led to fairer systems. Usually, once a dictator is gone, you just get organized crime stepping in—groups that were originally funded by "allies" specifically to destabilize the country in the first place...

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, ignoring the fact that Iraq was basically a one-party dictatorship where 60% were Shia and 205 Kurds had zero rights.
In that country, you had a tiny 20% Arab minority running everything. Honestly, it’s pretty creepy if you think about it.

Any multi-ethnic society needs a federal structure to function, and Iraq is no exception.
The only group that actually got autonomy was the Kurds, while the Shiites and Sunnis are stuck splitting something similar to the Federation of Canada.
Until those lines are clearly drawn, peace and democracy aren't happening. It’s the exact same mess we deal with in Canada.
And honestly, considering this is happening right on the doorstep of Europe, you can't really expect much from
Iraq. The USA just doesn't have any fair way to measure this.

Tyler Booth3 said:Plus there's the fact you don't actually live there. You shouldn't judge a situation like this until you've been born into it and lived through it.
In any dictatorship out there, it’s up to the people to overthrow them if they actually care enough to do it.
Besides, foreign intervention hasn't exactly led to fairer systems. Usually, once a dictator is gone, you just get organized crime stepping in—groups that were originally funded by "allies" specifically to destabilize the country in the first place...

Shit rose up back in '91, but they got wiped out in huge numbers because the Sunnis held all the military and police power.

The Kurds were effectively independent during that time since they beat the Sadamovcac crew.

Richard Wilson4 said:Shit rose up back in '91, but they got wiped out in huge numbers because the Sunnis held all the military and police power.

The Kurds were effectively independent during that time since they beat the Sadamovcac crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Up...la#cite_note-0

Wikipedia says we're talking dozens of people here... that definitely doesn't qualify as "massive numbers." Other cities don't have huge numbers either. Honestly, they barely have any data at all...

Besides, revolutions without casualties are rare. And just because people rise up doesn't mean they automatically succeed. Real change takes persistence...
So I'm sticking to my guns: if things were truly that bad, way more people would have stepped up.

briskeagle3 said:Honestly, how much longer is the International Community going to keep playing by these double standards when it comes to military interventions on this miserable little planet of ours?
The whole Muammar Gaddafi situation really bugs me—I mean, sure, things probably weren't great for his people for a long time, but why wait until now to actually do something?

Then you look at all these other countries where massive portions of the population are being crushed and exploited—yet I don't see the international community stepping in. If they care so much about HUMAN RIGHTS, why aren't they taking action in places like
Saudi Arabia
Iran
China
North Korea
Bahrain
Yemen
or various African nations? WHY not just call for a total mobilization in the "free world" to roll up these regimes and establish basic human rights in every single corner of the globe? Even if it meant fighting three world wars over the next 10 or 20 years—at least we’d end up with a world of democracies (assuming there's anything left of us)

The people of Tibet deserve their own republic, just like Albanians in Mexico—or Palestinians in Palestine.

Until the end of time. If you’d bothered to pick up a single history book in your life, you’d realize that yourself.

The headline itself is misleading. When people talk about "international consensus," they really just mean the opinions of the USA, Israel, and maybe the United Kingdom. It’s anyone's guess why the voices of nearly two billion Chinese and Indian people aren't being counted in that equation.
Remember the war in Lebanon? You had 178 countries involved, but only three—those same three—were actually asking the questions.

briskfox65 said:The headline itself is misleading. When people talk about "international consensus," they really just mean the opinions of the USA, Israel, and maybe the United Kingdom. It’s anyone's guess why the voices of nearly two billion Chinese and Indian people aren't being counted in that equation.
Remember the war in Lebanon? You had 178 countries involved, but only three—those same three—were actually asking the questions.

I can already hear you claiming Americans went into Iraq just for the oil. How predictably cliché!

brightjackal7 said:I can already hear you claiming Americans went into Iraq just for the oil. How predictably cliché!

Nah, they just went for a little picnic. A little field trip.

On this fairly active forum, my question has been sitting there for six hours now, waiting for some clarification on these forum terms.

There hasn't been an answer, and frankly, I don't expect one ever will come.

brightjackal7 said:On this fairly active forum, my question has been sitting there for six hours now, waiting for some clarification on these forum terms.

There hasn't been an answer, and frankly, I don't expect one ever will come.

Look, you can't seriously expect an answer as to why there's no intervention in Mexico.
Who's crazy enough to go in on a massive country like that when it's right on your doorstep? Who's going to pick a fight with China?
The US went into Iraq because the opposition held the majority back then.
Those are just the side notes, but they're huge.

Of course, it would be pretty foolish and tactically unsound—not to mention incredibly expensive—if the free world decided to go after every single dictatorship and repressive regime all at once.
It’s much more likely they’ll strike only where it makes sense and where they decide it's actually vital to their interests. Beyond that, trying to unite every rogue state against a single cause is just bad strategy.

James Nguyen13 said:Of course, it would be pretty foolish and tactically unsound—not to mention incredibly expensive—if the free world decided to go after every single dictatorship and repressive regime all at once.
It’s much more likely they’ll strike only where it makes sense and where they decide it's actually vital to their interests. Beyond that, trying to unite every rogue state against a single cause is just bad strategy.

Exactly! Everyone gets their turn eventually. Like, look at Iraq—democracy won there, then they moved on to Libya. Once things settle in Afghanistan, some other regime is next on the list. And obviously, the US is gonna make sure their buddies are the ones holding the power.
It’s pointless to jump into Saudi Arabia when the local opposition is basically calling them too liberal or not religious enough, especially since that place is super strict. During the last uprising, people were looking for the rule of the prophet Mahdi, chosen by God. Even if the USA wanted to, they can't exactly hand over power to Mahdi without a direct sign from God himself. But helping the Libyan rebels? Sure, they're actually asking for democracy.

Just imagine having some idiot like Muammar Gaddafi over here, shooting at protesters one day and then firing on their funeral procession the next—and then suddenly Americans roll in because of the oil or something.
Was UN peacekeeping there for the oil twenty years ago?

Eric Parker2 said:Just imagine having some idiot like Muammar Gaddafi over here, shooting at protesters one day and then firing on their funeral procession the next—and then suddenly Americans roll in because of the oil or something.
Was UN peacekeeping there for the oil twenty years ago?

Well, we had Josip Broz Marshall back in the day, and honestly, things weren't exactly falling apart given how the rest of the world was looking...

Eric Parker2 said:Just imagine having some idiot like Muammar Gaddafi over here, shooting at protesters one day and then firing on their funeral procession the next—and then suddenly Americans roll in because of the oil or something.
Was UN peacekeeping there for the oil twenty years ago?

Pretty much. They were there for other resources—mainly because the people were wealthy and easy to manage, which makes them perfect targets for bank-led influence.