71–80 of 176 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was remarkable how one of the first movements after withdrawing from the EU was to change the rules so water companies could dump sewage and render watercourses unsafe and polluted.
The price for that will be felt decades from now. It also tells you something about how the anti-EU lobby was financed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US experienced a significant unifying force 22 years and 4 days ago. The effect was very clearly only temporary.
Last time I visited the US, the TSA still exists. Pretty sure the effects have remained. Not sure about the "unifying force" fantasy though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Lybian forces were on the verge of committing war crimes and killing thousands, then "intervention" would be an appropriate word to describe what the Western powers did. They "intervened" to prevent an imminent atrocity, if you believe them. And I am inclined to believe them, not because of what Western governments have said, but because the whole Arab Spring played out in real time on social media. I agree that w…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then stop toppling governments[1]. Where you can't do anything, you do not need to want anything. 1. Perhaps one can say that this is already done, since we do not hear of any recent examples. Still, this was not very far back.
> Then stop toppling governments. Not necessarily. A total prohibition there would give free reign to tyrants to oppress their own people or even invade their insufficiently-allied neighbours without fear of consequence. The second world war is widely regarded as a just conflict (on the balance), even if it did topple the governments of the Axis powers. However, my thinking above raises cost-estimation from a practic…
Come on, North Korean regime exists for 70 years now and it is relatively stable. You're not going to heal the world. China will continue to do whatever it wants in Tibet and Cental Asia. The only thing you get by doing interventions against the regimes you do not like, is encouraging other countries to do interventions against the regimes that they do not like.
You can nudge tyrants into becoming milder and perhaps transitioning power sometimes in the future, and that would also have a benefit of not starting civil wars and having refuge crises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a dead comment here about how it was "actually a dam collapse, not a flood" and how no news source is reporting on that. From what I can gather, at a glance, at least the AP, The Guardian and Al Jazeera all state that the flood was the result of two dams collapsing and the cause of the collapse was the storm. Even the article itself states that the two dams were poorly maintained and the collapse is the resul…
Root cause analysis is complex for a reason. Separating out contributing causes from root causes is difficult and sometimes even impossible. Would this dam have failed eventually? Probably yes, on a long enough time-scale. Would it have failed now if not for that storm? Probably no. Note that even in the developed West there are plenty of pieces of infrastructure at risk because of climate driven extremities.
In my part of Germany we had a severe rain storm this week that caused local flooding in part because the sewage treatment plant could not process the intake quickly enough, resulting in the sewers getting backlogged while rain was still pouring down.
Even without outright neglect a lot of infrastructure simply can't handle situations significantly outside the standard range of operation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Lybian forces were on the verge of committing war crimes and killing thousands, then "intervention" would be an appropriate word to describe what the Western powers did. They "intervened" to prevent an imminent atrocity, if you believe them. And I am inclined to believe them, not because of what Western governments have said, but because the whole Arab Spring played out in real time on social media. I agree that w…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope that you understand that bombing Lybia, supplying rebels with weapons and then making them kill Gaddafi is a direct opposite of a cease fire ? Or do you believe that a cease fire is when the other side ceases firing so you can get a good shot yourself?
No it’s when both sides agree to stop
Shows the involvement clearly.
When ever I see something like this I can’t help but wonder if it would have happened if EU and America hadn’t assassinated Gaddafi. I know that’s kind of a knee jerk reaction, but really what is happening in lybia now? What’s the plan? Protect the oil pipelines and just don’t look too close anymore?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/13/why-did-dernas-dams...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One reason is because they didn't intervene in Rwanda, and got widely criticised for that. I believe it was decided that genocide demands intervention.
The bottom line seems to be that the West is criticized by some people no matter what they do, or even what they don't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Lybian forces were on the verge of committing war crimes and killing thousands, then "intervention" would be an appropriate word to describe what the Western powers did. They "intervened" to prevent an imminent atrocity, if you believe them. And I am inclined to believe them, not because of what Western governments have said, but because the whole Arab Spring played out in real time on social media. I agree that w…
[flagged]