Western democracies have made mistakes before, but to stand away from all global strives is not a viable option. Australia had participated in two world wars, not of its choice. But, participation in wars of the kind fought in Islamic countries is questionable as advancing Australian Constitutional values.
We think we have refugee problems....
- Thread starter Ausprop
- Start date
Western democracies have made mistakes before, but to stand away from all global strives is not a viable option. Australia had participated in two world wars, not of its choice. But, participation in wars of the kind fought in Islamic countries is questionable as advancing Australian Constitutional values.
Nope.
None of the countries I have listed had anything to do with things you described. Sure, some of them weren't the most democratic, and there is no doubt that they had dictators in power. However the same western countries were friends with same dictators for a number of decades, selling them weapons, technologies of chemical weapon production etc... Also same western countries are still friends with countries that have regimes much worse, because they are our allies.
yes we are the problem.
the reason these places never end their scuffles (apart from religion) is because we keep supporting them in doing so to achieve our own goals.
if you look at middle east history since collapse of british empire, every conflict is a result of west interfering, then trying to fix what they broke, then trying to fix what they broke while trying to fix the previous thing and so on.
Fair enough.
Hypothetical; if all the West withdrew every single one of their citizens (armed forces etc) from these Countries tomorrow - had no more "on the ground" involvement whatsoever - other than the Embassy staff and any tourists, or permanent workers of existing Companies - what would be the end result in say; 5 years time? Make it 10 years. (any trade and aide agreements between the host Country and the West will also be cancelled as of tomorrow as well, of course).
Let's take it further; no Embassy or tourism (too dangerous), no permanent ex-pat workers or Visa residents etc - a complete "western" vacuum.
Would they be worse, or better in your opinion?
Last edited:
The questions is who would drop the nukes first, Israel or Iran?
If better, they would claim - despite Western intervention. If they are worse - claim debilitation because of deleterious exploitation of their resources and emasculation through years of subjudication. Your opinion - in the eyes of the beholder. Apology for cynicism.
The middle east wasn't exactly a beacon of peace before the British Empire either...
it wasn't, but the western countries keep trying to extinguish fire with petrol
well we know for a fact they were better before the latest round of western interference.
it's hard to predict the future, but if you ask me - they will be much better off in the long run if west was to stop interfering with internal affairs of those countries.
I don't think anyone has the answer to the problems in the middle east.
exactly. but everyone seems to be trying to solve them, causing even more problems.
So leaving the Middle East alone to solve their own differences is the answer? Can't see that one ending well...
The problem is going to be the millions of innocent folk who will be killed while the settling is going on, and on, and on.
But we know the answer - the end will never come in their internal affairs problems.
Meanwhile, us folk from the west will continue to take in the refugees, and still cop blame and attacks and god knows whatever else.
Hey; we can cop a new blame - we refused to help.
well it was all more or less settled 15 years ago. it was settled even 5-6 years ago
same millions of innocent folks are killed now, what's a difference then? except that we are now a party to a conflict, so a valid target for those that we fight against.
And who's killing innocent folks now? Other middle easterners or the west?
I think you're simplifying an extremely complicated issue. Most of the problems in the middle east go back thousands of years. It's a time bomb.
other middle easterns with support of the west.
i'm not simplifying anything.
most countries in the middle east had some sort of internal balance. while it probably wasn't as democratic as we would like it to be, it worked for majority of population. and it still works for the countries which west decided not to destabilize, because they are our allies. like saudi arabia.
then comes the west and says "you know what, if you go and overthrow your government you will have much better lives. and here's some weapons, and media support for you". and then you have it.
and i'm not even talking about cases where the west directly invaded countries to remove the governments they didn't like.
Sorry about the size
The Global Village expanding
Thanks, Redwing. It is quite an eye opener. Colombia has numbers of internally displaced people lesser only to Syria. Quiet notoriety!
Similar threads
