Originally Posted by ~Darkseeker~
Well, we seem to have no problem being aligned or pally with Saudi Arabia.. I agree that the Russians were a bit... different and violent and all other kinds of things, but a non-war that lasted until 1989 seems a bit much
I'm sure that to a lot of people around the globe, the recent publicity surrounding the police and the US Govt has many people thinking the US is going to same way
I'm just assuming that you don't read much of anything of history?
the Russians were "a bit different and violent...".
Ummm, Stalin was a dictator, who planned and committed ethic cleansing and genocide.
You seem to have a problem with one "regime" but think that we should have been allied with the most brutal regime that deliberately committed ethnic cleansing and genocide on a far larger scale than the Nazis ever did?
lets be clear, the Russia that you think we should have been allied with for almost a century, was, (until perhaps 30 years ago) the most brutal dictatorship that committed some of the worst atrocities that the world has seen.
7 million people died in years 1932 - 1933 in a "planned famine" in the Ukraine, (a famine that magically seemed to stop at a border)
to put that into perspective, ~9500 people dying, in the street of hunger, every day.
To put it into a different perspective, the amount of Ukranian citizens that were starved to death in the Holodomor (over 2 years) is roughly equal to the total Russian Military deaths incurred in battle over the entire ww2 campaign.
just over the Entire 1940 population of Australia, (as in if Stalin has killed every man woman and child in Australia, he'd have still needed to find a few more to kill to equal that total.
About 9 times the total combined battle field deaths from the battle of the Somme.
Or five times the combined military casualties
, (not just deaths) of USA, GB (including colonies) France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Poland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia during WW2,
Then imagine that happening over a period of about 700 days, (rather than the many years of WW2) and for what? - to break the spirit of a country, to ethnically cleanse out Ukrainian people, and replace the population with people "loyal to Russia" in a "famine" that occurred in years where actually the harvest was around normal (and in 33 actually about 50% higher than normal) and a famine that "magically stopped" at the Ukraine/Russia border in "loyal" territories.
here's a fun quote (from wikipedia)
Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was "not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you." The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.
The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act.":225 More than 2,500 people were convicted of cannibalism during the Holodomor.
but yeah, sure we should have been best palls with Stalanist Russia...
You do know that Britain was "aligned" (but not allied) with Russia and the US during the cold war (many years after the "worst" atrocities, and that Thatcher was instrumental in bringing Gorbachev and Reagan to the discussion table to end the cold war and bring down the Berlin wall, re-uniting both Germany and Europe?
Do you understand why I'm making this comparison?
Should we have been the USSRs best friend? and be complicit in the way that it's citizens were treated? - no. clearly not.
(though if you still believe that we should have been allied with them feel free to make the case!)
Should we have nuclear standoff with them? - no.
but by at least being open to discussion we are able to eventually begin to work at change and peace...
Should we be Saudi Arabias best friend and be complicit in the way that they treat (some of) their citizens. - no of course not.
Should we go to war with them? or ostracize them or provoke them to war?- no.
because we should try to seek peaceful solutions! - and yes, sometimes that will mean that we should talk to nasty people, sometimes that will mean being seen to not sanction a country that still has crucifixion as a punishment, but no, it should never mean being allied to.
Should we go to war with Islamic state...?
well... first, we can't, it's fundamentally impossible to legally declare war on something that is not a state. we can't be "at war with" Islamic state as they don't have a state, sure thy have bits of other states in their control. but technically speaking that's quite different.
So instead we deal with them as terrorists.
Can we deal with terrorists by negotiations?
Yes, it's worked before (for example with the IRA), and will more than likely work again.
But, first you have to be at a stage where both sides can accept negotiations.
negotiations involve both give and take...
So for example with the IRA, the IRA had to give up the position that Ireland must
be united, and the UK had to give up the position that Northern Ireland was a part of the UK under and must not succeed...
In the end, after years of bloody conflict they settled on the solution that any five year old could have given them at the start. - let the people decide.
If you look back in history far enough (1920 and previous) you'll see that a lot of Ireland was voting for politicians that wanted to succeed from the union. but that was concentrated in the south. people of the north were not voting that way, the reason for the 24/6 split of counties was the will of the people and how they voted.
and now we have the understanding in a peace agreement that IF the majority of people in those six counties want to vote to not be a part of the UK, and instead unite Ireland into a single nation in one land, then they can!
(but neither side can go against that, i.e if they call a vote and remain as UK, then tough, the unionists just have to put up with it, and if they call a vote and the majority want to unite Ireland then those that vote against it just have to put up with it!)
Islamic state don't have a stated goal past, everyone should worship Islam or die.
Given that "most" of the world don't want to, and you can't negotiate to make people worship.
And that there is no "negotiation" from the "unwavering, inflexible, and non changing" word of Allah
(or the interpenetration that they choose to believe) then how do you square that circle?
on the one side you have "the majority of the world" saying, I want to be free to choose my religion, I want my friend/mum/sister/daughter/wife to live freely with the same rights as any man, I want to be free to eat what I like when I like, I want to be free to drink a beer, if you or I happen to be attracted to the same sex then that's fine. I want to listen to music. etc."
on the other side, Islamic state are saying,
"you must be Muslim. it must be a very strict and twisted interpretation,
Women are worth less than men, and may be raped/beaten/sold into slavery.
Women must not be seen in public without "their" man, that owns them.
Marriage of children to older men is fine.
Pedophilia, is fine, (the Koran specifically allows sex with pre-pubescent children)
slavery is fine,
one Arabic slave is worth 2 black slaves.
you must not eat pork.
you must not eat in daylight hours during Ramadan,
you must not consume alcohol.
Homosexuality is a sin, and must be punished by death.
music, with instruments is sinful"
Don't misunderstand me. Ideally I would want a negotiated solution.
but realistically the only solution that "the west" could ever agree is.
"You stay over there and do what you want, but let anyone who doesn't want to do that come over here."
which is completely unreasonable to Islamic state since they are commanded that they MUST kill people who are gay, or who don't follow their religion.