News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
You can look at what happens to countries that don't "coordinate"
They often crumble from internal sectarian violence. Or get overrun by Russian sock-puppets barrel-bombing and using chemical weapons against their own people. But ah, yes, while I opposed the Iraq invasion, Saddam was clearly a great guy and Iraq was thriving, right? Or how about Iran? No bases there! I'm sure the women just love their bastion of freedom from their US overlords, lol.
Iraq was better off before the invasion. Fact.
Also, do you think women get freedom when the US installs bases?
I don't think this is a fact. Let's look at a few metrics, starting with HDI:
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Iraq/human_development/
Infant mortality rate:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/infant-mortality-rate
GDP per capita (ignore the silly outlier):
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/gdp-per-capita
These basic figures suggest that a number of key aspects of life are indeed better than they were during the dictatorship.
The homicide rate is higher now:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IRQ/iraq/murder-homicide-rate
Keep in mind though that there is no way of knowing how accurate official figures from the past were (this also goes for the numbers on human and economic development, of course). Also worth noting that the government itself could kill and maim with impunity back then:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde14/003/1996/en/
Freedom of the press is still pretty abysmal these days (and the page also touches on what you were likely mentioning the instability):
https://rsf.org/en/country/iraq
A report from 2002 on the state of affairs under Saddam's rule:
https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/press.html
I would admit that life in Iraq could be safer under Saddam Hussein compared to today, given that he kept a lid on especially religious conflicts, but this came with a big asterisk: Provided you didn't run afoul of the regime or provided the regime didn't think you did (no court of appeal, no independent judiciary, torture and murder are common - you can be the most loyal Baathist and still just be unlucky), provided you didn't have a pretty daughter (or were one) in a place where Saddam's son were looking for girls to rape, torture and murder, provided you weren't a member of a persecuted ethnic group, provided you didn't own something Saddam or his sons wanted from you, etc. The usual caveats of living under autocratic rule, with the added "insane son of dictator" factor (see also: what Kim Jong Il was up to in his younger days).
Up to one million people are dead because of the War on Iraq. You spit on their graves when you say life is better.
The upper estimates for the number of people killed under Saddam Hussein are about one million as well. Now what?
So America is about as bad as Saddam Hussein?
Then what was the fucking point? What did we do any of that for? Do you expect them to thank us?
Power, opportunism, thirst for war, corruption (not oil though). Plenty of reasons for this war.
Your logic has a flaw though: It's not like Saddam would have just stopped doing his thing in 2003 had he not been removed from power. The country was a powder keg anyway, so perhaps it would have ended up just like Syria eventually (I can't imagine the Arab Spring leaving it alone) - or perhaps we would have seen another war between it and Iran. Another possibility would have been Iraq attacking a neighbor other than Iran again, perhaps at a time when they weren't expecting a harsh American response (e.g. under a Democratic US presidency).
None of this excuses that Bush and Blair made up reasons to invade the country nor the incompetent handling of it afterwards that led to most of the up to one million dead post-Saddam, but let's not pretend that everything would have been rosy had the second Gulf War not happened.
Right, that just happened for no reason. Not like the US directly instigated the collapse of stability in the region. 🙄
Let's not pretend I said that.
Why are you blaming Syria on America, even though it was internal unrest sparked by the Syrian government torturing a bunch of kids for anti-Assad graffiti? This resulted in increasingly larger protests, which were crushed with incredible violence by the regime, which in turn led to mass defections from the Syrian army as more and more soldiers were unwilling to kill their fellow citizens, creating factions that fought both against the Syrian government and among each other.
America caused none of this. In fact, it's the Syrian government that claimed foreign agents were responsible for the initial protests. It's not a good look to repeat this obvious and transparent lie.
Do you think the internal unrest came from nothing?
The Iraq invasion lead to over a million Iraqi refugees fleeing to Syria and the 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel (triggered by Israel's illegal occupation of Lebanese territory that only the US recognizes) which lead to a further 100,000 refugees feeling to Syria. Then, of course, there was the broader region with America "we came, we saw, he died, haha!" utterly destroying Libya and turning it from the most prosperous African country to one that has open slave auctions. America has utterly destroyed that region (the Middle East and North Africa, I mean), Syria is just another country on the chopping block (Yemen too, now. You like that too?)
Now, were there literal foreign agents that triggered the initial protests? Doubtful. Did America pour grease on the fire once it started? Obviously, it literally backed the opposition groups and inflamed the civil war! There were almost 20,000 air strikes! There was very clearly a regime change operation underway, even if the initial trigger was only indirectly from the US destroying the Middle East.
And did US intervention in Syria help? Or did it make everything worse? I think we both know the answer.
Irrelevant. The kids Assad had tortured belonged to important Syrian families, not any refugees in the country.
Also irrelevant for the same reason and this land is only occupied, because it was used by Syrian forces for artillery shelling of Israel during the Six Days war. While the occupation isn't widely recognized, I really see no point in portraying it as a bad thing. Israel was attacked, they took a piece of land away from the enemy that would have made future attacks easier. Hardly an evil plot anyone needs to lose sleep over, other than Syria and Israel.
Not to mention, the 2006 war wasn't a war between Lebanon and Israel, it was one between Hezbollah and Israel - and certainly not one over the Golan Heights, which the terrorist group couldn't care less about.
Libya saw an uprising that was supported by a Western coalition based on a UN resolution. Blaming America for the ensuing chaos makes no sense. It was morally the right choice to support the rebels.
Why blame America when Iran is responsible? Iran-backed and -directed Houthis fired first, including at American ships (but anything that floats in these waters). Again, it makes no sense to blame America for shooting back here, especially since everyone else, except for the UK, is either unwilling or unable (like China) to do so.
Back to Syria:
I don't think you are aware of this, but in a single prison, Assad has had about as many people murdered as died in the entire war in Gaza so far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sednaya_Prison
Are you really blaming America for supporting groups that fight against such a monster?
Let me do some whataboutism for a change: There were 45,000 Russian air strikes until 2019 alone, which, unlike American air strikes, primarily targeted civilians:
https://airwars.org/conflict/russian-military-in-syria/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#Civilian_casualties_and_war_crimes
No, I don't think we can agree on this either. There are now parts of Syria with democracy and human rights:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria
Over a million refugees puts strain onto the economy and government, which then triggers unrest, which then triggers backlash from the government. Assad wasn't justified in torturing kids, but the civil war wasn't just started or sustained because of torture.
It's literally stolen land and that's why it isn't widely recognized, and since only the US and Israel (really the 51 States) recognize it then it's clear who is to blame.
And now look at Libya. Still think it was the right choice? Do you like the open slave auctions?
An outright lie. They're attacking ships that do trade with Israel (and now the US and UK, since they've made their unconditional support for Israel very clear)
I'm crediting America for it. And now look at Syria! Is it better off now? Oh, I guess you think it is!
In support of the government. I thought it was okay when the government invites foreign militaries!
And there are other parts which are still semi-active war zones, which have even less democracy and human rights than before the war.
I guess that's worth it to you.