" I guess i've still got a lot to learn."

Yes, like the fact that the Russian Federation is neither imperialist nor "authoritarian" despite how many times you repeat that. Nor is my handle remotely connected to my politics, which I've said 1,000 times. Next.

"The self-rule of Iran, Syria, and Libya were all deplorable"

You mean Iraq. And no, actually, the self-rule of Iraq was award-winning. Libya provided higher education for free and invested its resources in its own people. Syria is a beacon of religious tolerance which is why refugees fleeing now Islamist Iraq went to Syria and why Christians & Druze support the government over the terrorists.

"The Arab spring was an internal revolution"

Not really. Not even remotely actually. The opposition forces were all trained & armed by external powers. The events which triggered the rebels all externally induced.

"There is no point in painting either as good/bad guys. Both guys cause good and bad things to happen. And your blatant bias is not conducive to actually understanding of these situations. "

Keeping your 'moral purity' by refusing to take an actual stand against imperialism and vilifying their targets doesn't provide any understanding of these events. It just makes you feel good about yourself.

Denying that any 'imperialists' can have motivations other than extending their own power does not help extend your understanding.

If you look at the whole world through one lens then it will always appear the same.

So, ora, when will Murikka keep its end of the "deal"?

And what lens do you look at the world through, Ora? I fail to see how you heaping abuse on Libya, Iraq and Syria has helped understanding. But I can plainly see how it distorts the picture and helps the imperialists gain popular support, or failing that - apathetic complacency - for their shenanigans.

This isn't an academic discussion. This is about a real power struggle. Faux neutrality is a political act and takes a side, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Which lens? that is my whole frakking point, I try to take multiple lenses. I don't limit myself to one particular worldview, but attempt to understand more by actually looking at different perspectives.

Democracy has proven to be more stable, and one of the base human drives is for stability. Are you claiming by the way that western intervention was what lead tunisia to overthrow their repressive president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali?

Yes the events in Egypt, Syria and Libya were all influenced by what happened in Tunisia. There is more or less western involvement depending on the value attached with these countries as partners or opponents to western nations interests. There is no denying that the major reason for Western involvement in Libya was the Gaddaffi had made himself a threat to western powers.

They wanted to see him gone, and when the opportunity arose to support indigenous revolution they jumped at it.

Particularly Nicolas Sarkozy, who wished to make France appear more powerful in global affairs - his own nations interests there, just as when he flew to moscow to discuss cease-fire arrangements after Putin sent troops into Georgia.

There are many reasons for Frances wanting to appear more important, and more for the UK and US being willing to follow Sarkozy's lead in Libya. The fact that military involvement was limited to secret arms shipments and training, along with aerial bombardment to destroy Gaddaffi's military infrastructure - so the rebel could win - is an example of both the limits of western governments, and how they relate to their electorate and of the limits of the UN resolutions.

You must decry the security council as a tool of oppression, first and fore-most it prevents the major world powers from engaging in wars with each other or their proxies. Seen in this light it is clear the Russia and China both allowed the attacks on Libya because they didn't value Gaddaffi as a friend, unlike the current Syrian regieme.

It is true that Gaddaffi was considered to be a hero among african nations, nominated king of kings, he lead by example as one who opposed imperial domination from the rest of the world. That doesn't mean everything he did was fantastic.

I would deplore his human rights record, while i would similarily deplore the American, and British record on several counts.

A real power struggle, I am not faux neutral, i seek understanding, I suspect that it is only by understanding our opponents that we can ever hope to resolve conflicts in this world without resorting to genocide.

So I fully acknowledge that my position is a political one. I am in favour of education and empowerment to end all wars.

and yes, 'how to stay neutral on a moving train' is an interesting concept.

"Democracy has proven to be more stable, and one of the base human drives is for stability. "

The most stable form of government by a long stretch is actually absolute monarchy. No amount of data shows "democracy" (which I assume you mean bourgeois elections) to be the most stable form of government. There are plenty of examples of such democracies being highly unstable and rotating in and out of military government, which is the favorite response to unstable democracy around the world. If we seek understanding, let's start with facts, not wishful thinking.

As for Ben Ali. Yes, actually, the coup in Tunisia was externally instigated. This isn't actually a state secret. There was nothing exceptional about what was happening in Tunisia at the time of the insurrection. Actually Tunisia was doing just fine. Life expectancy highest on the continent. Very low poverty. Very good infrastructure. Associate member of the EU. It's a point of first world privilege to go ahead and condemn such a country as "repressive" when billions are toiling in misery. The fact that these "indigenous" rebellions were trained and orchestrated by CIA sources isn't even a state secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&emc=eta1&

See, those of us who followed events in eastern Europe for the past decade and a half recognize fake revolutions when we see them, since there have been fake revolution a plenty. The same people who trained the fake "Color Revolutions" are the same people behind the "Arab Spring".

"Seen in this light it is clear the Russia and China both allowed the attacks on Libya because they didn't value Gaddaffi as a friend, unlike the current Syrian regieme. "

Or they were lied to because what Russia & China had abstained on was a no-fly zone, not a NATO military intervention to topple Gaddafi. Russia had just concluded a big deal for military equipment with Libya worth billions. Also remember the liberal ignoramus Medvedev was President at the time, and he believed stupidly that the "no-fly zone" was actually going to be a no-fly zone, and not an illegal campaign of regime change for western interests. China, for its part, was swayed primarily by their relations with the Arab League, and was probably bewildered by how the Arab League has turned into the personal fiefdom of Riyadh during this time.

Their opposition to western actions in Syria is due to their learning quite clearly about what is actually going on now. They won't be fooled again. Remember it was the Russia media that exposed pretty much every lie told about the Libyan "bombardment of civilians" that never took place.

"I am in favour of education and empowerment to end all wars."

And repeating western talking points and distortions about Libya & Syria does that how, exactly?

The only thing that will end wars is if countries are equipped to defend themselves from aggression, and have forces of solidarity within NATO countries. What you're doing is not solidarity at all.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-dupe.html

Oh good, arms for peace. What a productive and useful solution.

I guess to get these arms they shuld purchase them from the most advanced arms dealers, so russia, china, the UK, US and French can enhance their power by continuing to control the arms trade as they have for, what 60 years? You provide no realistic way to wrench control of these super-powers and to actually achieve this peace, AND the lack of understanding among neighbours often break the solidarity you so desire. Countries armed to the teeth most often use their weapons against their neighbours - because fundamentally they are no better or worse than the current world leaders - ie those countries which currently lead the world in the production of tools for killing humans.

What i'm doing may not be solidarity, but then i never claimed that as a goal. I am not biased into thinking that any one group is better or worse than the others based on blanket statements.

My 'talking points' may be flawed, but you fail to recognise any other view than your own as having validity. You are you open to discussion, and this very point is why you will not manage to achieve anything here.

How are you open to other points of view, Ora? You're sitting here condemning my "lens" while prattling on about how open minded you supposedly are. This double standard for yourself is getting old.

" am not biased into thinking that any one group is better or worse than the others based on blanket statements. "

You're biased into thinking that somehow the contradictions of the world will resolve themselves peacefully if we convince the resource exploiting imperialists who want to turn the world into their personal playground that they're being unreasonable. How is that "realistic"?

Also by equipped I don't mean simply or even primarily military equipment. I also mean institutional equipment. Retaining the institutions of bourgeois democracy is a recipe for failure, as we've seen time & time again.

There is a reason why we've seen no war on the Korean peninsula, despite there never being a formal peace treaty and despite every effort by the West to destroy the DPRK. That's because the DPRK is equipped to defend itself. The only way we stop war is by removing countries from being in the pocket of the imperialists and supporting their efforts to move into the independent column, and not sniping at them from behind when they don't have morally pure politics all the time. This is why Latin America is a bastion of peace and internationalism these days. Because almost all the countries there have turned against US imperialism. The lone exception being Colombia, and behold - they are also the home of numerous US military bases.

If weak states with zero institutional or military defense capacity prevented imperialism for making a mess of things, we wouldn't see so many messes in sub-Saharan Africa. As a student of African military spending and foreign policy (for graduate studies purposes) I can tell you their defense budgets are absolutely bare bones, yet we see no shortage of mayhem. They also, incidentally, are the strongest supporters of international institutions and organizations. That hasn't helped either.

Yes, condemning your lens for being the only way you are able to view the world.

Not that it is wrong, but that it is as mindless as any other biased single view.

I have yet to see where your so-called open minded view has contributed to some kind of solution. Nothing but a lengthy ad hominem attack from you.

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Opinie/Leon-de-Winter.htm

By the way, this is what "democracy" in Tunisia looks like. Notice the rather muted response by the media compared to the dastardly Ben Ali.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j1ZgQL5CTJkPlLMmF2dBos8RnR4Q?docId=CNG.5f5f84da702a80aac5bbd3608e4d3dcb.e1