If the West hadn't got involved in the Middle East...

#1
What would the World look like now?

I heard of China telling the US not to mess up their sphere of interest in the manner they messed up the ME. (I paraphrase slightly.)

Would the world be a better place?

Saddam would still be in power, committing wholesale slaughter but keeping the lid on a volatile country. Ditto Gaddafi, and if he'd still been in power the whole problem with mass refugee migration to Europe probably wouldn't have happened.

With the established leaders in place and unchallenged, would ISIS / AQ have flourished in the manner they have? Would we be seeing the wave of Islamist inspired terrorism?


Would it actually matter if AQ had taken power in Afghanistan? Human rights would have been out of the window in many of those places, but is the attempted imposition of Western mores on long established regimes actually the right thing to do?
 
Last edited:
#2
Boring..........................

And, as you've never been to Afghanistan, what's the point?
 
#3
How is that working out for Syria with Assad still in place
What would the World look like now?

I heard of China telling the US not to mess up their sphere of interest in the manner they messed up the ME. (I paraphrase slightly.)

Would the world be a better place?

Saddam would still be in power, committing wholesale slaughter but keeping the lid on a volatile country. Ditto Gaddafi, and if he'd still been in power the whole problem with mass refugee migration to Europe probably wouldn't have happened.

With the established leaders in place and unchallenged, would ISIS / AQ have flourished in the manner they have? Would it actually matter if AQ had taken power in Afghanistan? Human rights would have been out of the window in many of those places, but is the attempted imposition of Western mores on long established regimes actually the right thing to do?
 
Last edited:
#10
What would the World look like now?

I heard of China telling the US not to mess up their sphere of interest in the manner they messed up the ME. (I paraphrase slightly.)

Would the world be a better place?

Saddam would still be in power, committing wholesale slaughter but keeping the lid on a volatile country. Ditto Gaddafi, and if he'd still been in power the whole problem with mass refugee migration to Europe probably wouldn't have happened.

With the established leaders in place and unchallenged, would ISIS / AQ have flourished in the manner they have? Would we be seeing the wave of Islamist inspired terrorism?


Would it actually matter if AQ had taken power in Afghanistan? Human rights would have been out of the window in many of those places, but is the attempted imposition of Western mores on long established regimes actually the right thing to do?

It's to make them democratic innit like
 
#14
I heard of China telling the US not to mess up their sphere of interest in the manner they messed up the ME. (I paraphrase slightly.)
Trump's clearly not listening [shock, surprise] tonight's news suggests he thinks he can put economic pressure on China to do something stupid over Korea.
 
#18
#19
The very, very valid point is made above - where and when do you start?

Alexander the Great?
Romans?
The Crusades?
Collapse of the Ottoman Empire?
Nazi ties with Ba'thism
WW2
Israeli independence
Communism? (is the Soviet Union classed as 'western influence' or not?)

Tying down what you mean by Western Involvement and when you are referring to is completely necessary in order to frame a response to the question
 
#20
Presuming this century onwards.

Libya: Gaddafi continuous with his pogrom, the West stands by and it turns into a massive civil war, akin to the six years of Syria. Egypt becomes involved due to incursions over its border and sets up an exclusion/ no fly zone. Asks for western assistance which is denied.

Russia supports the no fly zone and sends materiel to Gaddafi who wipes his hand with the West Six years on it makes Syria look like a walk in the park and Gaddafi actively supports terror groups again. He has an 'arrangement' with the AQ personnel who control eastern Libya, Benghazi to the Egypt border.

Iraq: Saddam continues to play cat and mouse with the IAEA, showing what clearly aren't nuclear triggers on tv and saying they are. Taunts the West and Iran, both of whom do nothing. The 'Arab spring' comes along and he's stuck in a civil war and like Syria (and before) uses gas on his own population.

Halfway through the civil war Iran attacks as he is still suppressing the Shia and gassing them. He isn't getting direct aid, but he is receiving indirect support from some third parties. Before Iran struck he was threatening Kuwait which was reinforced by the West

Syria: Very similar. Six years of civil war. 11M displaced, hundreds of thousands dead. Only with direct Russian support has any headway been made.

AQ: Continue to be the number one Islamist terrorist threat. Al Baghdadi was killed in Iraq by the Iranians. No caliphate declared but AQ control large areas of Iraq and Syria with their affiliated groups.

Migration: continues from sub Saharan Africa and the four middle eastern countries that are still having civil wars six years later. Italy has become a processing camp for an average 4M refugees annually.

Overall:Frankly, if Assad and direct Russian involvement only just managed to turn the tide after six years in Syria, why would Gaddafi and Hussein be any different? That ''Arab Spring' was coming anyway
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top