Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "ShanghaiEye魔都眼" channel.

There was a time, when we, the West, could coexist rather peacefully with countries of very different cultures and political systems. Unfortunately this readiness and the corresponding skills have diminished significantly. Many in the West today think that we are on some permanent global crusade. As much as I am embedded in the Western culture and as much as I love it forcing it upon others will result in much more harm than good. The failed "nation building" experiments in the Middle East are a dramatic illustrations of this.
20
You are "pretty sure" ? You "feel" ? No. You are just speculating.
2
@bouzibouzi9428 I am not confusing anything. It is Western politicians who are currently confused and who confuse people like you: One day NATO is defined as a purely defensive military alliance, another day NATO is a vehicle of fostering democracy. And that second alternative can be very well be seen as an element of "nation building". Two things are certain though: 1. NATO is not meant to render military services to anyone outside the alliance. More specifically NATO did not intervene when the sovereign state of Serbia was threatened by the secession of Kosovo, nor did NATO intervene when the sovereign state of the Iraq was invaded on the suspicion of having WMDs in 2003. 2. NATO is not a humanitarian institution: NATO did not intervene when Kurdish civilians were gassed in 1985 by Saddam Hussein (who in these times was supported by the USA). Nor did NATO intervene, when Assad gassed Syrian civilians in 2012.
2
@pvaz I can recall it very well. The West has coexisted with its declared enemy, the Soviet Union, for more than four decades. The USA has reestablished relations with its declared enemy, the PR of China, in 1971/72. The West had very close ties with the Iran ruled by its Shah and close ties with the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The USA have brokered peace between arch-enemies Israel and Egypt.
2
@pvaz My statement "There were times" is not abolished by your argument that these times were short. That these times were "rather peaceful" is not abolished by your argument that they were not entirely peaceful. The "coexistence" which I have praised is even more to be admired when one takes into account the antagonism which you are mentioning. Your introduction of economic issues doesn't undo the ideological element of the situation, which I have concentrated on. To sum up your arguments are neutral, additional or even supportive to what I have stated.
1
@pvaz I am afraid that you are still not getting that we do not differ in this respect: My "There was a time" and the occurrences I have mentioned refers to roughly 1945-1990. And it refers mainly to the mindset of the West towards other cultures and political systems. I maintain that the West in this time span was better at handling corresponding differences than later. You are talking about roughly 1985-2022. Your 1 war per 8 years makes no sense, when the Iraq conflict and the Afghanistan conflicts lasted for many years.
1
@thomaslaubli1886 Actually none of them has invaded a single country. Apparently you confuse internal affiars with foreign policy. And foreign policy with crusading.
1