• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Syria Is The Spanish Civil War

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
 

Jredbaron96

Gen 4:10
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
18,726
Reaction score
11,240
Location
US of A
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So what was the Spanish Civil War? Syria?
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
Franco got aid from a lot of people. Nazi Germany. italy. the fascists parties in Romania. Yugoslavia. Greece. He had a muslim mercenary company that took Cadiz and performed some of the greatest massacres and human rights violations in that war. Heck, Frenchmen and Englishment went in to join the war on Francos' side. All sponsored by far-right parties who had militia groups.

And so did the republicans in Spain. Btw, the republican forces were named republican because they were fighting for the republic, and against the dictatorship that Franco was trying to impose. Not because they had close resemblance to the Republican party of the USA.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,934
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kudos for creativity on the OP. But in fact, the American left nearly totally embraced the war against Franco and fascism while the American left today is badly split over Syria. So I think the comparison is not an apt one.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,102
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
That set of generalities completely misunderstands both civil wars. On the Spanish Civil War you are wrong because:

  1. The West did not support the Republic; only individuals volunteered and provided funds. Britain and the US tacitly supported Franco. WR Hearst, Rockefeller, DuPont, Lindbergh and Kennedy (JFK's father), GM, Ford and Standard Oil all provided support to the Fascists in financial terms and in breaking the arms boycott. France did nothing.
  2. The Republican side was a coalition of conservatives, liberals, radicals, socialists, anarchists and communists. The communists only became prominent because they had aid from the Soviet Union. The cons, libs, rads and anarchists had none. The West delivered the Republic into the hands of the Communists, and Spain into the hands of the Fascists and Nazis.

Just as in Spain, there are plenty of noble, brave and admirable people in Syria fighting extremism and tyranny. Not all the rebels are AQ or fundamentalists; many are liberals, democrats and moderates. It's difficult to know who they are or how the balance of power within the rebel alliance stands. I'm not sure from what position of knowledge you are speaking when you claim that there is no one noble and no one doing the right thing. Perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Red_Dave

Libertarian socialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
6,879
Reaction score
1,715
Location
Staffs, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Just like in that conflict,most of the west,including US "progressives"sided with the "Republicans"who were really communists. They got aid from the Soviet Union,as well as from American leftists. Franco got aid from Nazi Germany. Like in that conflict,in Syria their is no one that is noble or in the right.
Only difference being the leftists have changed sides.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm not sure from what position of knowledge you are speaking when you claim that there is no one noble and no one doing the right thing. Perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion.
The right is regurgitating the same "al Qaeda infested rebels' narrative they tried to use to thwart our Libyan intervention. The problem with reusing that narrative is that its not about "helping the rebels". Its about punishing the use of WMDs.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The right is regurgitating the same "al Qaeda infested rebels' narrative they tried to use to thwart our Libyan intervention. The problem with reusing that narrative is that its not about "helping the rebels". Its about punishing the use of WMDs.
Yet the punishment helps the rebels - and I have yet to see overwhelming evidence showing AQ is NOT in Syria. Libya is a mess post military action there so why do we, America, want to repeat that given Iraq and Afghanistan, and side with AQ against Syria under a futile guise of "punishing" Assad? We're not Syria's parents ffs... Syria poses no direct threat to the U.S. and Israel can take care of themselves very well.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yet the punishment helps the rebels - and I have yet to see overwhelming evidence showing AQ is NOT in Syria. Libya is a mess post military action there so why do we, America, want to repeat that given Iraq and Afghanistan, and side with AQ against Syria under a futile guise of "punishing" Assad? We're not Syria's parents ffs... Syria poses no direct threat to the U.S. and Israel can take care of themselves very well.
How much would it help the rebels? its not going to tip the balance. And nobody is saying AQ is not in Syria. AQ is everywhere in the middle east. and the Libyan "al Qaeda" narrative was completely overblown and the Iraq "al Qaeda" narrative was a lie. So the right's track record on crying wolf about AQ is not a good one.

Yes, Libya is a mess. Sorry but democracy can be messy. Name a country that's not a mess after overthrowing a dictator (Nicaragua is the correct answer). Yes or no, was Iraq a mess after saddam?
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
How much would it help the rebels? its not going to tip the balance.
As it's being sold to the American public it doesn't sound like it will tip the balance, but let's not forget Syria's main ally in the region is Iran. What we think are moderate groups may not be. For all we know (and given our intelligence history in the past 20 years - we don't know much) no one can be sure what will happen or what balance will be tipped in which of the many groups favor.

And nobody is saying AQ is not in Syria. AQ is everywhere in the middle east. and the Libyan "al Qaeda" narrative was completely overblown and the Iraq "al Qaeda" narrative was a lie. So the right's track record on crying wolf about AQ is not a good one.
They're not all AQ certainly, but AQ has shown a resurgence and the ability exists that our intervention will benefit AQ. Something I do not want any part of.

Yes, Libya is a mess. Sorry but democracy can be messy. Name a country that's not a mess after overthrowing a dictator (Nicaragua is the correct answer). Yes or no, was Iraq a mess after saddam?
Democracy? Are you claiming that Obama did in Libya the same thing Bush did in Iraq - ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? And now in Syria, we saying we NOT going after Assad (believe that or not) but simply slapping his hand for killing over a thousand of his own people with zero proof it was Assad who actually did it. For all we know Putin's correct one of the many groups fighting there did it including AQ.

I'm not buying. Not our problem - if the ME wants to take care of it, go ahead. The UN grows a pair, then fine get a majority on the security council to agree. We can use the money, time and energy rebuilding the U.S. in this lagging stagnant lack of jobs non-recovery post recession we're in.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Democracy? Are you claiming that Obama did in Libya the same thing Bush did in Iraq - ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? .
are you asking a question or trying to make a point? and your "former ally turned brutal dictator" line is pretty funny. Saddam was always a brutal dictator. Previously he was also an ally. Yea, we were such good pals with Saddam, Reagan blamed Iran for gassing the kurds.
And now in Syria, we saying we NOT going after Assad (believe that or not) but simply slapping his hand for killing over a thousand of his own people with zero proof it was Assad who actually did it. For all we know Putin's correct one of the many groups fighting there did it including AQ.
.
zero proof? wait are you referring to Iraq again? sorry, you lose credibility when you post wishful thinking as fact.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
are you asking a question or trying to make a point?
Both.
and your "former ally turned brutal dictator" line is pretty funny. Saddam was always a brutal dictator. Previously he was also an ally. Yea, we were such good pals with Saddam, Reagan blamed Iran for gassing the kurds.
And so was Gaddafi - he was a former ally and a brutal dictator, we also had hot and cold relations with over decades.

So you agree Obama was nation building in Libya.


zero proof? wait are you referring to Iraq again? sorry, you lose credibility when you post wishful thinking as fact.
It may clue you in with the first four words I used "And now in Syria..." so it's a pretty good guess that I'm NOT referring to Iraq. But please, continue to not address my points. Feel free to post proof (which I noticed you didn't do). :2wave:
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And so was Gaddafi - he was a former ally and a brutal dictator, we also had hot and cold relations with over decades.
Oh no no no no you don't. He was only Bush and Haliburon's ally. Oh how the cons whined when Britain released the Lockerbie bomber. Oh how the cons said nothing when Bush paid reparations to Libya and kissed gadaffy's butt. Let me back up Bush kissing gadaffy's butt


State Condeleezza Rice announced that the U.S. was restoring full diplomatic relations with Libya and held up the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as "a model" for others to follow.
"

Why Gaddafi's Now a Good Guy - TIME

can you say "smooch , smooch, smooch"?

So you agree Obama was nation building in Libya.
Humor us, how do you define "nation building". My definition would require "boots on the ground".
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh no no no no you don't. He was only Bush and Haliburon's ally. Oh how the cons whined when Britain released the Lockerbie bomber. Oh how the cons said nothing when Bush paid reparations to Libya and kissed gadaffy's butt. Let me back up Bush kissing gadaffy's butt
I'm not going to defend Bush nor litigate irrelevant items you throw - I don't know what Cons or Progs did or did not whine as it's irrelevant.

Point being you agree Obama entered the nation building just like Bush did in Iraq. You may define it as "boots on the ground" - technically we had boots on the ground called the CIA in Libya. Gaddafi was removed (killed), and now we have a mess. This may be why Obama is not saying he's going after Assad this time since Libya was a cluster-**** and still is.


Humor us, how do you define "nation building". My definition would require "boots on the ground".
"the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy." Nation-building - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,102
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
its not about "helping the rebels". Its about punishing the use of WMDs.
The trouble with THAT narrative is that it seems inequitable to punish one side for doing what some factions of the other side have already done. Certain elements of the rebels have already used poison gas attacks. Once again the West is in danger of being seen to take one side against the other for political rather than ethical reasons.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,102
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Oh how the cons whined when Britain released the Lockerbie bomber.
FYI, it wasn't the British government that released Al Megrahi, it was the Scottish government. The British government was dead against it.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm not going to defend Bush nor litigate irrelevant items you throw - I don't know what Cons or Progs did or did not whine as it's irrelevant.

Point being you agree Obama entered the nation building just like Bush did in Iraq. You may define it as "boots on the ground" - technically we had boots on the ground called the CIA in Libya. Gaddafi was removed (killed), and now we have a mess. This may be why Obama is not saying he's going after Assad this time since Libya was a cluster-**** and still is.

]
wow, you equate Bush's actual nation building in Iraq with our "no fly zone" in Libya. How convenient for you. However, I don't . Oh and your "technicality" about boots on the ground is also convenient. Read this slowly so your brain cant trick you: we were not committed to providing support for the new govt in Libya the way we were in Iraq. so you keep arguing "technicalities". I'll just keep posting facts.

I really would like you to expand your silly narrative about "former ally turned brutal dictator". You seem to be pretending you didn't post it. Or expand on your silly "nation building" narrative. either one works for me.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
wow, you equate Bush's actual nation building in Iraq with our "no fly zone" in Libya. How convenient for you. However, I don't . Oh and your "technicality" about boots on the ground is also convenient. Read this slowly so your brain cant trick you: we were not committed to providing support for the new govt in Libya the way we were in Iraq. so you keep arguing "technicalities". I'll just keep posting facts.
Regardless, the definition of nation building I provided fits Obama's Libya activities. I cannot help you equating "boots on the ground" to nation building, nor can I change your misguided perception. Do you deny the CIA was orchestrating the attacks in Libya? No. Do you disagree with the definition I provided for nation building? No. Gaddafi and Saddam were both savage dictators and both killed (read: removed from power), both countries had no-fly zones (as you pointed out), both countries had UN resolutions against them. What's convenient is you're equating "boots on the ground" equaling "nation building" as that's obviously incorrect in the most polite sense of the word. Do you deny actions in Libya have left the country in a political and power struggling mess? No.


I really would like you to expand your silly narrative about "former ally turned brutal dictator". You seem to be pretending you didn't post it. Or expand on your silly "nation building" narrative. either one works for me.
You can educate yourself on Gaddafi - it's called Wikipedia and it'll give you a little insight to the 1970 international negotiations and subsequent removal of UK and American access to Libya, the 1986 American bombing of Libya in retaliation for murdered U.S. soldiers in Beirut as well Libya's removal from the "state sponsored terrorism" list in 2006. If you want to further your background on the subject matter I'd suggest the following:
Libya: The Rise and Fall of Qaddafi: Alison Pargeter: 9780300139327: Amazon.com: Books
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Regardless, the definition of nation building I provided fits Obama's Libya activities. I cannot help you equating "boots on the ground" to nation building, nor can I change your misguided perception.
that’s hysterical, Your definition is “the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.” I equate “boots on the ground” to “armed force”. Of course you have to believe the CIA constitutes an armed force. I’m sure they are armed but I wouldn’t call them a force. And are they “underpinning” the transition? Of course not. Maybe you should reread your definition.

Anyhoo, I was trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. You are trying to push false narratives and play word games. I should have suspected as much when you said “ former ally turned brutal dictator” .
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
that’s hysterical, Your definition is “the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.”
To be clear it's not my definition it's the accepted definition.

I equate “boots on the ground” to “armed force”. Of course you have to believe the CIA constitutes an armed force. I’m sure they are armed but I wouldn’t call them a force. And are they “underpinning” the transition? Of course not. Maybe you should reread your definition.
Given the clandestine nature of the CIA and their activities, I don't think anyone can say other than those with Top Secret clearance if they worked on a transition. Maybe you need to dig a little deeper than reading definitions and start asking questions and doing some logical analysis. Why would the CIA be on the ground before and after? What possibly would they be doing? Has the CIA in the past, underpinned a transition of a government and worked towards an overthrow of a government? Is there a possibility they could be doing that covertly in Libya?

Anyhoo, I was trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. You are trying to push false narratives and play word games. I should have suspected as much when you said “ former ally turned brutal dictator” .
Don't push your motives and actions on me in hopes to save face on the internet. I'm doing nothing more than challenging your perspectives and arguments.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
To be clear it's not my definition it's the accepted definition.
.
and to be clear, our actions in libya do not meet your definition. You equating the CIA as an "armed force" is at best an exaggeration but there is no way you can claim in an intelligent and honest debate that its "underpinning the transition to democracy". sorry.

And equating "underpinning" military coups as proof that they could possibly be "underpinning the transition to democracy" is laughable. If I wanted to play games, I would just pretend the CIA is not in libya to begin with. But I'm not playing games. I'm trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. something you dont seem interested in.

do you even know why you are falsely claiming we are "nation building" in Libya or are you just focused on your winning your "game"? Let me know when you want to have an intelligent and honest coversation.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
and to be clear, our actions in libya do not meet your definition.
It's not my definition, for the 2nd time.

You equating the CIA as an "armed force" is at best an exaggeration but there is no way you can claim in an intelligent and honest debate that its "underpinning the transition to democracy". sorry.
Honestly, the CIA has involved itself in coups, clandestine foreign government overthrow activities, sabotage, etc... I'm sorry you don't believe that's a possibility here and I'm sorry that you're wrong.

And equating "underpinning" military coups as proof that they could possibly be "underpinning the transition to democracy" is laughable.
Laughable why?
If I wanted to play games, I would just pretend the CIA is not in libya to begin with. But I'm not playing games. I'm trying to have an intelligent and honest conversation. something you dont seem interested in.
Instead you claim it's laughable but don't provide evidence to back up your assertion. That's simply "denial" which is not a valid form of debate.

do you even know why you are falsely claiming we are "nation building" in Libya or are you just focused on your winning your "game"? Let me know when you want to have an intelligent and honest coversation.
Why is it false? Prove me wrong.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's not my definition, for the 2nd time.
I said “your definition” in reference the definition of Nation building you posted. so I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. So let me be clear

Our efforts in Libya in no way meet the latest definition of ‘nation building’ you posted .

In case you are wondering about “latest”, your first attempt at defining nation building was “nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator”. I was too busy laughing at the “turned brutal dictator” part to notice it was your original definition of “nation building”.

Honestly, the CIA has involved itself in coups, clandestine foreign government overthrow activities, sabotage, etc... I'm sorry you don't believe that's a possibility here and I'm sorry that you're wrong.
more silly games. I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve never disputed the activities of the CIA. I’m disputing your attempt to say “hey, the CIA overthrows democracies all the time” as proof that its possible the CIA could be the “armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy”

Laughable why?
Instead you claim it's laughable but don't provide evidence to back up your assertion.
Its laughable because it’s a false analogy. A coup does not take a lot of people nor does it require us to supply “boots on the ground” and it requires no long term commitment. Nation building not only requires “Boots on the ground” it requires a lot of “boots on the ground” and a long term commitment. There simply is no comparison between what we did in Iraq and what we did in Libya.

That's simply "denial" which is not a valid form of debate.
Its not denial. I clearly pointed out your assertion we are “ nation building in Libya” does not me the latest the definition of “nation building” you posted (the one from wiki, not the laughable one you made up). You have to play word games to try to equate a CIA operation as the “armed force” necessary to " underpin an enduring transition to democracy”

I can also use the example of nation building in Iraq. Since you are so committed to your “nation building” narrative, how come we had to have 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq for 9 years? (do I even need to mention the surge?) How come we just didn’t send in 20 or so CIA agents? The correct answer is because we were nation building in Iraq. See how Iraq so effortlessly fits the definition of “nation building” you posted (the one from wiki, not the laughable one you made up). No games necessary.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I said “your definition” in reference the definition of Nation building you posted. so I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. So let me be clear
Ok.

In case you are wondering about “latest”, your first attempt at defining nation building was “nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator”. I was too busy laughing at the “turned brutal dictator” part to notice it was your original definition of “nation building”.
Why I stated "ally turned brutal dictator" was a reflection of American policy and views toward him. He was not always seen as brutal. In the 1970 the U.S. desperately wanted to work with Gaddafi to get bases in Libya for staging points. When that fell through he we were basically thrown out and then in the mid-1970's he was considered persona non grata. Things cooled and got hot again in 1986 when Reagan bombed him in retaliation for Beirut. 20 years later in 2006 Libya and Gaddafi were taken off the "state sponsored terrorist list" and in 2001 Gaddafi publically came out against the 9/11 WTC attacks. So I'm trying to depict the up and down nature of America's views toward Gaddafi and not making a blanket personal statement or judgement of who or what I think he was.



I’ve never disputed the activities of the CIA. I’m disputing your attempt to say “hey, the CIA overthrows democracies all the time” as proof that its possible the CIA could be the “armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy”
Well that's a strawman since I never said either of those things. What I'm saying is since the CIA was on the ground, the possibility exists that they were there to do just that - work with the opposition and depose Gaddafi. History shows you don't use the CIA to direct traffic and there's a history of the CIA's secret and clandestine activities.



Its laughable because it’s a false analogy. A coup does not take a lot of people nor does it require us to supply “boots on the ground” and it requires no long term commitment.
The CIA doesn't initiate and follow through with a coup, they set the coup up. I'm not saying the CIA did that in Libya but it's certainly possible for reasons I've already stated.

Nation building not only requires “Boots on the ground” it requires a lot of “boots on the ground” and a long term commitment. There simply is no comparison between what we did in Iraq and what we did in Libya.
Iraq certainly worked out that way, but I don't agree that's all it takes. Why is it that the US cannot support an opposition group to be boots on the ground by proxy? The entire purpose of the military action in Libya was to give control of the country back to the people and in so doing, removing Gaddafi from his power base. Perhaps we can agree that whatever was done by whomever in Libya was a failure ...



Its not denial. I clearly pointed out your assertion we are “ nation building in Libya” does not me the latest the definition of “nation building” you posted (the one from wiki, not the laughable one you made up).
I've only ever used the Wiki version as the example - so what would you call the actions in 2011 in Libya then if not nation building?



I can also use the example of nation building in Iraq. Since you are so committed to your “nation building” narrative, how come we had to have 150,000 boots on the ground in Iraq for 9 years?
The answer to that changed many times over the years. If you're asking what I think it was, it was initially to oust Saddam and install a pupped government to benefit the US but then security issues occurred and we did not leave, and it then became a military police state / security mission.
How come we just didn’t send in 20 or so CIA agents?
Iraq wasn't stable enough and there was little to no plan of succession should that have occurred. After the 2 weeks of fighting in Iraq after the initial invasion would have been the time to do it, but everything was in a shambles. I think Bush underestimated and had little to no plan on what to do after the fighting was over.


The correct answer is because we were nation building in Iraq. See how Iraq so effortlessly fits the definition of “nation building” you posted. No games necessary.
So only your view of what nation building is correct using Iraq as an example, and nation building can never deviate or be utilized in a different way because: Iraq. You're keen to point out logical fallacy, take a shot at what fallacy you just barfed up right there.

If you disagree state why and stop making accusations like you know what my motives are or have some insight into my intent. You don't and it's ignorant and rude.
 

Vern

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
12,852
Reaction score
4,152
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
oh Ock, you are responding to things I haven't posted. You're just posting a lot of words to make it look like you are responding to me. And Ock, I don't need your 'version' of history. You haven't demonstrated a good grasp of reality. But as is always the case, when con feel like they have to post a lot, they always end up contradicting themselves.

I've only ever used the Wiki version as the example .
you claim you've only posted the wiki version as the example and then post one of your many deflections. Read this slowly.

Your first version of nation building was this laughable mess

ie., nation build by removing a former ally turned brutal dictator? .
Again, that "turned brutal dictator" is hysterical. Anyhoo, you used a made up and convenient (and hysterically funny) definition of nation building. You then resorted to the wiki definition. Now, you've made the claim that we are nation building. You've laughably tried to equate a CIA contingent as an "armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy."

so what would you call the actions in 2011 in Libya then if not nation building?
.
Ah, your latest attempt to deflect from your silly narrative. You made a silly claim. back it up. But I call it "helping remove a dictator from power". why would you ask such a silly question? oh yea, its your latest attempt to deflect from your silly narrative.
 
Top Bottom