Do you want The rebels in Syria to Win

[the2real4mafol]

Ckmlb1 said:

the2real4mafol said:

Sharu said:
Gaddafy (??) was killed. But deaths in Lybia aren't stopped.

Yeah it's really unstable in Libya there is still a weak government but do you really blame people for wanting to overthrow a ruler who was a tyranny for over 40 years? The people there though they had enough of dictatorship and being treated like shit by there government. But i guess the problem is, was this influenced from the outside or was it the people's revolution. Also, the problem with the killings is probably because everyone was allowed to keep what they found when they took over the military bases from Gaddafi's army. It will probably take years to recover there and prosper in a Gaddafi-free age

You argued earlier that the west should not support imposing islamic dictators like in Iran (Shah was the furthest possible thing from a islamic ruler), Afghanistan (the Taliban did not exist when the Soviets left, they came along in the mid-90s and won took over through a civil war) and Iraq (west didn't install anything, the people elected the government, the majority of the Iraqis are Shia so the Shia will logically lead the country now just as the Sunnis should lead Syria), but you seem fine with the overthrow of Qaddafi (almost impossible it seemed without western aid, at least at the speed it moved). By the same logic the Syrians are revolting against their dictatorial rulers. The jihadists joined the fight in Lybia as well and will flock to any war zone in a muslim country to spread their ideology and beliefs. 

Just because i supported the overthrow of Gaddafi that doesn't mean i supported western intervention of Libya. We just manage to make everything worse so why bother?, it's their fight anyway. I want Assad gone as much as the rebels but that don't mean we should get involved. It's also the same for the past, we should just keep our noses out of it, Iran was a functioning democracy before the west decided to fund a coup but because the leader wouldn't cooperate with us over oil we had to do something! While in Afghanistan the west was willing to support anyone who was willing to fight the soviets and funnily enough they ended up being terrorists who hated the west. Osama Bin Laden being one of the key people who got help to fight against the soviets. My problem is none of it was neccessary, Afghanistan was a prosperous and modern nation before 1979, it's just sad what war and religious extremism can do to a country. ~http://englishrussia.com/2011/07/21/the-afghanistan-of-the-50s-60s/#more-60639

While, Iraq we didn't install a leader but we wasted 10 years there at first removing Saddam Hussein and then the rest of the time trying to fight against a guerilla resistance which has still lead to problems there today. Without war or bastard leaders, Iraq could probably be as rich as the UAE with all the oil it has

But really, i'm not suprised we get extremist muslims today when we lead to the destruction of their society by removing their leaders (whether democratic or dictatorial). There is no law and order left and there are so bound by their religious beliefs, they will do anything to further the cause. It's sounds similar to what communism once was, as you find it was very popular in the countries worst hit by world war II, which is why America tried to fund their reconstruction, although it was too late for some countries.