Maybe the 21st century will be the century of disinformation. We have enough of it here with all the environmental apocalyptic fare shoved in our faces.
I keep getting a recurring thought that Iraq might have been better off sticking with Saddam. Comparing the loss of life under him with the last 20 years, say; or the fact that under him there were 1 million Christians in Iraq but now that number is literally decimated. Can these countries with significant tribalism and which were artificially created, really cope with democracy: ie the willing submission of the minority? Even the US now seems to find that difficult.
Might the same be said of Libya which remains a mess? Gaddafi seemed to have been reigned in internationally before he was toppled.
Just thoughts – not necessarily answers.
P.S. US disinformation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
Interesting YouTube find PeterLR. The sort of stupid US liberal whites shown here who consider they are right-on anti-racists are full of racist assumptions about blacks and as much a cause of racial conflict as those who are happy to display their bigotry without claiming to be anti-racist.
Of course this is true. It is a Western belief that it was all for some moral good. Even as Saddam and Gaddafi worked with Western powers they often acted independently of Western interests. This is why they were targeted. They understood imperialism and often toed the line to prevent conflict but believe it or not sometimes they even acted in their peoples own interest. Particularly Gaddafi. Sadr is a populist and is therefore hated by Western leaders with a particular passion. He is seen as being un-corruptible at last by his supporters. I see him as kind of a potential Nasrallah figure. Nasrallah is one the few truly great leaders of the middle east. This is of course a very unpopular opinion if you are a citizen of the West.
Maybe the 21st century will be the century of disinformation. We have enough of it here with all the environmental apocalyptic fare shoved in our faces.
I keep getting a recurring thought that Iraq might have been better off sticking with Saddam. Comparing the loss of life under him with the last 20 years, say; or the fact that under him there were 1 million Christians in Iraq but now that number is literally decimated. Can these countries with significant tribalism and which were artificially created, really cope with democracy: ie the willing submission of the minority? Even the US now seems to find that difficult.
Might the same be said of Libya which remains a mess? Gaddafi seemed to have been reigned in internationally before he was toppled.
Just thoughts – not necessarily answers.
P.S. US disinformation:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2LpFkVfYk
Interesting YouTube find PeterLR. The sort of stupid US liberal whites shown here who consider they are right-on anti-racists are full of racist assumptions about blacks and as much a cause of racial conflict as those who are happy to display their bigotry without claiming to be anti-racist.
Of course you might have mentioned this YouTube video as a set up video designed to show anti-racist liberals as racist idiots. Who knows?
Of course this is true. It is a Western belief that it was all for some moral good. Even as Saddam and Gaddafi worked with Western powers they often acted independently of Western interests. This is why they were targeted. They understood imperialism and often toed the line to prevent conflict but believe it or not sometimes they even acted in their peoples own interest. Particularly Gaddafi. Sadr is a populist and is therefore hated by Western leaders with a particular passion. He is seen as being un-corruptible at last by his supporters. I see him as kind of a potential Nasrallah figure. Nasrallah is one the few truly great leaders of the middle east. This is of course a very unpopular opinion if you are a citizen of the West.