View Full Version : World Politics - Syria
Fisherking
09-04-2013, 13:54
Boots on the ground doesn't just mean Iraq/afghan style occupation. It can also mean targeted exfiltrations, assassinations, and sabotage by special forces. This approach coupled with strategic bombings over the course of 6 months to 1 year is my strategy and it is the one which they will likely use.
The Army is a waste of money full stop, at this point in American history. Their use is related to large scale symmetrical warfare (Russia, China), or in occupational restructuring (and they've proven themselves to be largely inept at that in Afghanistan and Iraq). I would imagine that, given the failure of the Army to produce favorable results over the past 12, that it will be relegated to status similar to a reserve or national guard. The functional US military at this stage is the Navy, Air force, Marines, and Army Special Forces. US army is an occupation and engineering security force built for a different time and dramatically different style of warfare.
Tell you what, you like the idea of boots on the ground, you should enlist. So should Congress, or at least send in their sons and daughters.
Fighting insurgents is not the same as fighting regular forces. You can’t tell friend from foe. Sure there is the Syrian Army but they have their own insurgents and even those who want the government crushed don’t want us there.
The air strikes just make us Al Qaeda’s air force, which is bad enough.
In Syria now we have two enemies fighting. If you saw two thug gangs in the street going at it with knives, would you jump in the middle to break it up?
That is exactly what you want our troops to do!
https://i.imgur.com/tZGujGx.jpg
Do you think this guy is the only one that feels this way?
Get Real!
Marines, SF, and Air Force were in the same places the Army was. I didn’t see them making any greater headway in fighting this kind of war than anyone else.
There are two ways to handle it. You kill everyone and go home or you occupy with an iron fist and wait a generation or two. Which do you prefer?
Kerry says if the regime becomes destabilized to the point that their chemical weapons are unsecured, we'd have to put boots on the ground (http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria)....
This kind of seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy if the current plans are carried out doesn't it? :no:
Kerry may as well be wearing a miniskirt and pompoms at this point. Like ATPG said, AIPAC must be working him hard...
I'd like us all to remember what happened last time (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-report-we-all-thought-libya-had-moved-on--it-has-but-into-lawlessness-and-ruin-8797041.html)we tried to punish a dictator with bombs.
Though the Nato intervention against Gaddafi was justified as a humanitarian response to the threat that Gaddafi’s tanks would slaughter dissidents in Benghazi, the international community has ignored the escalating violence. The foreign media, which once filled the hotels of Benghazi and Tripoli, have likewise paid little attention to the near collapse of the central government.
The strikers in the eastern region Cyrenaica, which contains most of Libya’s oil, are part of a broader movement seeking more autonomy and blaming the government for spending oil revenues in the west of the country. Foreigners have mostly fled Benghazi since the American ambassador, Chris Stevens, was murdered in the US consulate by jihadi militiamen last September. Violence has worsened since then with Libya’s military prosecutor Colonel Yussef Ali al-Asseifar, in charge of investigating assassinations of politicians, soldiers and journalists, himself assassinated by a bomb in his car on 29 August.
Rule by local militias is also spreading anarchy around the capital. Ethnic Berbers, whose militia led the assault on Tripoli in 2011, temporarily took over the parliament building in Tripoli. The New York-based Human Rights Watch has called for an independent investigation into the violent crushing of a prison mutiny in Tripoli on 26 August in which 500 prisoners had been on hunger strike. The hunger strikers were demanding that they be taken before a prosecutor or formally charged since many had been held without charge for two years.It's pretty much a terrorist playground now. And we want to do the same in Syria.
Kudos, but this can't be right though 'Ethnic Berbers, whose militia led the assault on Tripoli in 2011, temporarily took over the parliament building in Tripoli' as far as I know they are a minority that lives in South-Marroco and the occupied western-sahara, but not beyond there. Must be bedouins, not berbers
There actually is a small Berber minority in Libya. Qaddafi himself comes from an arabized Berber background.
HoreTore
09-04-2013, 18:29
Seriously?
Someone on a total war forum doesn't know they can recruit berber units in Libya...?
Sarmatian
09-04-2013, 18:44
Not to mention that Berbers aren't Moroccan minority, but a group of people that inhabits the territory from Atlantic ocean to Egypt and there's app. 40 million of them.
Minority by Chinese standards maybe.
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-04-2013, 22:32
It's possible they signed up with the naive idea that the US wouldn't do something so obviously stupid as to back the jihadi side of a foreign civil war for no benefit to the United States.
In case you had any doubt about what a buffoon John Kerry is, this should settle (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/04/kerry_arab_countries_have_offered_to_bear_costs_for_a_us_invasion_to_topple_assad_.html) it:
KERRY: Well, we don’t know what action we are engaged in right now, but they have been quite significant. I mean, very significant. In fact, some of them have said that if the U.S. is prepared to go do the whole thing, the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost. That’s how dedicated they are to this. Obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it, but they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done.
That was his response to a question about how supportive Arab nations are about action in Syria.
They'll pay the costs... if we "go do the whole thing". So we're mercenaries now? Shouldn't Kerry have been at least a little insulted by such an offer? Who made it? Bear in mind, this is John Kerry- renowned anti-war activist.
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-05-2013, 02:06
In case you had any doubt about what a buffoon John Kerry is, this should settle (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/04/kerry_arab_countries_have_offered_to_bear_costs_for_a_us_invasion_to_topple_assad_.html) it:
That was his response to a question about how supportive Arab nations are about action in Syria.
They'll pay the costs... if we "go do the whole thing". So we're mercenaries now? Shouldn't Kerry have been at least a little insulted by such an offer? Who made it? Bear in mind, this is John Kerry- renowned anti-war activist.
Well we might as well go whole-hog on the Hessians business. We can even give our troops fancy hats.
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-05-2013, 03:04
The self-determination to massacre the Alawites, Druze, and Christians? Madness. Another imperial intervention will earn points with no one except Israel and the oil sheiks, the antithesis of the "little people".
HoreTore
09-05-2013, 07:31
The self-determination to massacre the Alawites, Druze, and Christians? Madness. Another imperial intervention will earn points with no one except Israel and the oil sheiks, the antithesis of the "little people".
You think the bloodbath will be smaller if Assad wins...?
He's got an axe to grind as well, and it's getting bigger and bigger every day...
“When you raise your hand, you lose your rights.” “keep your mouth shut.”: That is an open road for War Crimes, you do realise that, do you? So you Hero at My Lay is the Lt William Callay and not the 3 US Servicemen who tried to stop the massacre as they had to “keep their mouth shut”.
I could accept your point when you were arguing for the good of Democracy and Freedom. But now, I really question your goal. And it was Sarmatian accused to be a fascist… Man, Assad soldiers are in your side….
You think the bloodbath will be smaller if Assad wins...?
He's got an axe to grind as well, and it's getting bigger and bigger every day...
Probably, but the worst of the rebels are already dead or back to where they came from by then. Assad is the best of all bad choises simple as that. Backing the rebels is backing genocide of minorities, just like in Libya. As teh Panzer said, we cannot help these people but we can leave them be. It's the middle-east as it has always have been. Should have backed the green wave in Iran when we had the chance.
Montmorency
09-05-2013, 08:31
You think the bloodbath will be smaller if Assad wins...?
So if we're calling the human outcomes equivalent, then isn't the Assad-scenario preferable? If half-a-million die, that's surely better than for half-a-million to die while we drop several billion in currency...
If we intervene, it should really be to enforce stalemate - and partition.
Fisherking
09-05-2013, 09:46
All the Soldiers putting up signs like that ought to lose some rank (rest of the services can be slouches--who cares about the Navy? They're already soft). Its a volunteer Army. Volunteer. Vol-un-teer. Just because you don't like the smell of the current war doesn't mean you get an out.
Sure the Chief is speaking out of turn but his opinion is no different than nearly everyone else’s in the matter. From bottom to top the military is not behind it. Nor is the American public.
Most people are bright enough to know that this is not our war.
If the chemical weapons detonated had been the Russian weapons provided to Syria we would have known it at once and it would be the main selling point.
It was obviously not a persistent nerve agent you get from military grade chemicals.
This is just a NeoCon push hoping to involve Iran in the mess.
Are you sure you want to buy that bridge?
Lol, holding your cards, Hezbollah doesn't get it. Hezbollah wants to defend Damascus. Good. But they also aren't ruling out attacking Israel. But only if they get direct orders from Iran. Any questions?
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-05-2013, 11:46
You think the bloodbath will be smaller if Assad wins...?
Assad can't kill all the Sunnis, but the jihadis can kill all the Druze, Alawites, and Christians. That's how being minorities works.
It started as democratic insurrection, and it still could be. The longer the rebels go without aid, the more they have to resort to outside help from extremists.
The only part of the insurrection that knows how to fight are the extremists. Has there been any revolution where the most effective revolutionaries didn't end up in charge of the post-revolution government?
I would rather we support nobody than support Assad
I agree. We shouldn't be involved at all.
*I mean you can't blame the rebels. Not even the really bad ones. This is what is supposed to happen when a dictator shoots and tortures one too many of his people. Revolutions are bloody, ugly, and more end in failure than success, but they are a vital part of the human experience. Our revolutionary war set records for western distaste at the time. The war of 1812, to follow, included routine massacres of prisoners because the animosity was still there a generation later. This isn't a fairy world, this is reality and these people are fighting for their own version of liberty. Down with dictators.
The liberty to massacre religious minorities. Your "have to break eggs to make omelets" attitude works just as well in favor of Assad. So what if a few thousand protestors and jihadis die to preserve stability and secularism? It's the price of doing business in an unjust world.
InsaneApache
09-05-2013, 11:51
"The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing the country's military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."
The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.
-- John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person.
ICantSpellDawg
09-05-2013, 13:48
In a flip-flop to my previous post, the occupation in Iraq had a favorable outcome, due to the skill of the Army. My assertion that they are inept is baseless and faulty based on a review of the current situation in post-occupation Iraq.
In a flip-flop to my previous post, the occupation in Iraq had a favorable outcome, due to the skill of the Army. My assertion that they are inept is baseless and faulty based on a review of the current situation in post-occupation Iraq.
Plenty, there literarily thousands of euro-jihadis, but Hezbollahalso decided to join the fun, 0000 zeroes so a lot anyway
“You didn't even quote me right.” Err, I copy and paste: Difficult to quote not right.
“How does showing basic military professionalism translate to committing war-crimes?” Showing basic military professionalism doesn’t implicate “you lose your rights”. That means to obey legal orders based on lawful decisions.
“The Army is breaking down because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” I don’t know. However, I think this can be due to the fact that engaged twice in dodgy wars without any real purpose, soldiers don’t see why they fought. We had this in France after Algeria, when the Army won the war but Algeria became independent nevertheless. We even had a putsch then a terrorist campaign by the most extremist of the most lost soldiers. Professional units rebelled as they couldn’t see why their members had died in vain (most famous one being the 1st Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes – Foreign Legion). Other units as the 2nd Régiment Etranger de Parachutistes stayed in the legality, but still, it took ages to cure the army of useless wars and battles.
The thing about the chemical attacks is that it favours Assad, due to the rebels having urban superiority due to mass of small arms, whilst the more conventional forces such as tanks get bogged down with the narrow streets, high rise buildings and are very susceptible. This is why orders from above to Assad's forces forewarn about chemical attacks, which clears an area then the army just marches in virtually unopposed. I am pretty convinced the chemical attacks are done by Assad and he is evidently benefiting from them. The blood of his people is on his hands, men, women and children.
The issue starts to come in with "What do we do about it?". There is the UN Red-line on Chemical Weapons. I hope the UN gets the guts to actually condemn Assad and commission an UN Taskforce perhaps seeking assistance of NATO and Russia, and I hope Russia decides to do the right thing over its own personal interest such as profiting from the arms dealing.
The use of Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons and Nuclear Weapons such be met with very serious consequences from the UN.
Assad should step down, there is no doubt about it. have some one else in the regime take-over, some one who is interested in resolving the issue peacefully. With co-operation between the new regime and the moderate forces within the rebels, there is a chance to form a stable and perhaps democratic state in the region.
Arming the rebels, simply bombing the place, it is fighting fire with fire, it will burn down Syria even more significantly just to get Assad removed by force.
All people referring to UN and Chemical weapons should read who signed the treaty and not, and who carry on the produce Chemical (and biological) weapons. That will be enlightening... And who didn't ratified it... Then who used it massively after W.W.2 (clue: Vietnam) (dioxin component)?
Just finished emailing my senator and congressman to vote "nay" on any action against Syria. That's about all I can do to prevent this madness, but at least I did my part.
HoreTore
09-05-2013, 23:36
Just finished emailing my senator and congressman to vote "nay" on any action against Syria. That's about all I can do to prevent this madness, but at least I did my part.
I've never understood the point or meaning of the "write your congressman"-thing you yanks do.
I've never understood the point or meaning of the "write your congressman"-thing you yanks do.
Their votes are supposed to reflect the sentiment of their constituents. I just made sure that my sentiment is known.
HoreTore
09-06-2013, 00:04
Why not? Its one of the few things that works. Even in the last decade, some of the biggest non-issues that could have been huge issues were stopped in their tracks by letter-writing. SOPA comes to mind. While I disagree with rvg politically, I thank him whole-heartedly for writing his congressman.
*Whoops, guess it wasn't my "last thought" lol. I'm done arguing about Syria though. We're too broke for this shit, its not worth arguing about.
So.........
The congressman won't be able to read most or any of the letters due to the sheer volume of it, but he can get too scared to act if the emailbombing is particularly fierce.
So, you've succeeded in replacing informed and well thought out commentary with fear induced by email spamming.
How is that a good thing, exactly?
HoreTore
09-06-2013, 00:06
Their votes are supposed to reflect the sentiment of their constituents. I just made sure that my sentiment is known.
And you believe that by reading his email inbox now, you will get a proper view of the feelings in your district?
Or will it be a case of those who scream loudest forcing their view through?
Writing to your MP is a big thing in Britain too. They mostly do not reply though.
And you believe that by reading his email inbox now, you will get a proper view of the feelings in your district?
Or will it be a case of those who scream loudest forcing their view through?
It's a case of me having a limited number of tools at my disposal. I can either do nothing or use the limited tools available to me (i.e. emailing the congressman). Whether or not there are many others like me in this district, I do not know, but I feel strongly enough about this issue to fire off an email to the guy whom I helped send to Washington. If I stay silent, I'll be just as liable myself for the unwanted outcome.
Rhyfelwyr
09-06-2013, 01:03
So.........
The congressman won't be able to read most or any of the letters due to the sheer volume of it, but he can get too scared to act if the emailbombing is particularly fierce.
So, you've succeeded in replacing informed and well thought out commentary with fear induced by email spamming.
How is that a good thing, exactly?
Ugh, what did I just read...
It is a politician's job to be professional and to respond in a measured and appropriate way to such correspondence. Writing to your MP/Congressman/whoever is one of the most basic and direct ways for a citizen to engage with their elected representative. This is one of the few ways the two parties can actually have an "informed and well thought out commentary", although you seem to think we should forsake such a democratic and free exchange of ideas, just in case our representative is such a useless bundle of nerves that he caves in at the slightest expression of public opinion.
You know HoreTore you come out with some strange stuff when you look for issues to take up with people you disagree with. I thought you were all about grassroots democracy, civic engagement and all that.
HopAlongBunny
09-06-2013, 03:53
Not a bad take on where and why:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/republicans-house-syria-against
FYI, Chuck Hagel is also a buffoon (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/pentagon-clarifies-hagels-comments-that-russia-sent-chemical-weapons-to-syria/#.UijBn11GGd0.twitter).
It all happened in an exchange with Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during which Hagel said it’s no secret that the Assad regime has significant stockpiles of chemical weapons.
When Wilson asked where they’d come from, Hagel said, “Well, the Russians supply them. Others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves.”
After the hearing had concluded, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued a clarification, explaining that Hagel was referring to the “well-known conventional arms relationship between Syria and Russia.”When he said that Russia is supplying them with chemical weapons- he actually meant they're not. That's a hell of a "clarification". :yes:
“So two wrongs make a right?” Err, that was not my intent: my view is when you invoke legality, check the facts. Syria didn’t sign the Convention, so, even if Assad used gas, he broke no law. I can’t have you to pay for a rent you didn’t sign for, right?
It is how the USA justified the use of Orange gas in Vietnam as it was intended against vegetation, not human beings, at least not “intentionally”.
“distorting my point for your own ends.” Yeap. That is what we call a debate.
“the Islamists have been chosen by their people” As the Soviets were by their? Legitimacy goes to the best armed… Can I remind you that Assad is winning (according to some sources, I didn’t check, to be honest), so he is the legitimate power…
InsaneApache
09-06-2013, 09:42
Writing to your MP is a big thing in Britain too. They mostly do not reply though.
I recently had occasion to contact my MP. Afterwards I had the impulse to shout Sieg Heil at him. Pour quoi? Because my MP is David Ward the well known fascist and Jew hater. I dont know why the Lib Dems let these racists and misogynists in but they do. And they call UKIP nutters!
Oh yay our minister of shaking hands with other people who shake hands seems to be very eager to shake hands. Piss off with your war, nobody wants war. @ Syrians: Sorry in advance should the Netherlands gets involved in this, don't dispise me, it wasn't me, I hope you understand that
“So two wrongs make a right?” Err, that was not my intent: my view is when you invoke legality, check the facts. Syria didn’t sign the Convention, so, even if Assad used gas, he broke no law. I can’t have you to pay for a rent you didn’t sign for, right?
It is how the USA justified the use of Orange gas in Vietnam as it was intended against vegetation, not human beings, at least not “intentionally”.
Agent Orange was meant for vegetation. While the timing of the discovery is in question, Monsanto screwed up the manufacturing process which allowed the dioxin contamination to occur. Spraying the countryside with dioxin was not the original plan. Of course, the original plan was to starve the peasants out of the fields and into the US controlled cities, so it's not much of an improvement. ~:rolleyes:
"Of course, the original plan was to starve the peasants out of the fields and into the US controlled cities, so it's not much of an improvement" And to deprive the Ho Chi Minh Trail of its cover, if I remember well. Of course starving to death the locals was good as well...
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-06-2013, 21:51
FYI, Chuck Hagel is also a buffoon (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/pentagon-clarifies-hagels-comments-that-russia-sent-chemical-weapons-to-syria/#.UijBn11GGd0.twitter).
When he said that Russia is supplying them with chemical weapons- he actually meant they're not. That's a hell of a "clarification". :yes:
And to think of all the neocon tears spent over Obama's nomination of that anti-war anti-semite. :rolleyes:
Fisherking
09-06-2013, 22:08
LOL Obama is a neocon, or in their pocket.
http://www.syrianews.cc/iran-supports-syria-war/
Fisherking
09-07-2013, 09:05
In other News, US tells the world we plan to hit artillery concentrations and missile sites.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/06/us-rules-out-hitting-syrian-chemical-sites.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Now they know what to hide, again.
This is just a stupid exercise to pull Iran into the fight.
Of course this is so FUBAR it should send alarm bells ringing everywhere. More oil and money anyone?
Fisherking
09-07-2013, 20:55
Obama team thought Iran would not tolerate Bashar Assad's use of WMDs
http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-team-thought-iran-would-not-tolerate-assads-use-of-wmds/article/2535328
Now, you may ask can anyone be that stupid.
These people need to go.
But my bet is that they are liars as usual. They know it is the best way to draw Iran into a war but saying that would be worse than looking like bumbling fools.
Also, the military view: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html
Fisherking
09-07-2013, 21:12
I am betting it passes by a narrow margin. Replacement missiles cost a lot of money and there people want their campaign contributions more than they want the approval of the people.
I think Syria will receive some sort of an ultimatum to get rid of its chemical weapons.
Sarmatian
09-07-2013, 21:28
I think Syria will receive some sort of an ultimatum to get rid of its chemical weapons.
Too late for that.
Too late for that.
Not really. At least that's what is currently being mulled in the Senate FR Committee.
HopAlongBunny
09-07-2013, 22:23
Too late for American politicians to turn hypocrite? Never.
Too late for politicians to turn hypocrite? Never. Fixed :p
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-08-2013, 00:02
I've never understood the point or meaning of the "write your congressman"-thing you yanks do.
Look up "Representative Democracy".
Seriously, are you trying to sound like a Facist creep.
Writing to your MP is a big thing in Britain too. They mostly do not reply though.
Actually, you usually get a note to at least acknowledge that they've received your letter.
Of course - going around and knocking on their door works, too.
Ugh, what did I just read...
It is a politician's job to be professional and to respond in a measured and appropriate way to such correspondence. Writing to your MP/Congressman/whoever is one of the most basic and direct ways for a citizen to engage with their elected representative. This is one of the few ways the two parties can actually have an "informed and well thought out commentary", although you seem to think we should forsake such a democratic and free exchange of ideas, just in case our representative is such a useless bundle of nerves that he caves in at the slightest expression of public opinion.
You know HoreTore you come out with some strange stuff when you look for issues to take up with people you disagree with. I thought you were all about grassroots democracy, civic engagement and all that.
It's not surprising a Norwegian wouldn't understand the concept of writing MP's or congresspersons. Norway uses plural member constituencies. Hore doesn't have one MP for his area he has like 7 or 8.
Oh ffs the EU backs it as well, where is your proof. I am not really surprised as the the unelected chiefs of the EU didn't waste a second supporting the muslim brotherhood in Egypt, here cash! For democracy! Figures that they back extremists in Syria as well.
Sarmatian
09-08-2013, 07:55
Not really. At least that's what is currently being mulled in the Senate FR Committee.
The country is in chaos, I seriously doubt they're capable of accounting and getting hold of all their stuff.
I believe it's more of a ruse to buy some more time or to appear impartial or whatever.
Fisherking
09-08-2013, 10:19
It's not surprising a Norwegian wouldn't understand the concept of writing MP's or congresspersons. Norway uses plural member constituencies. Hore doesn't have one MP for his area he has like 7 or 8.
Sounds like a great way to build a one party system and rob most people of any voice in government.
I bet he loves it!
Ah, Obama is going to show the congress the youtube video's everybody allready has seen. So if I get this right there was a chemical attack and that's it?
Fisherking
09-08-2013, 10:22
Think he will show the one of the Rebel leader executing the prisoner and eating his heart and liver?
Think he will show the one of the Rebel leader executing the prisoner and eating his heart and liver?
Didn't know it was a prisoner, but you got to admit that's pretty badass.
But anyhow, I am pretty sure there is ZERO evidence that the Syrian goverment did this. Video's are really nasty but all they is showing that a chemical attack took place, and I am not even convinced that they are real.
Pannonian
09-08-2013, 13:41
It's not surprising a Norwegian wouldn't understand the concept of writing MP's or congresspersons. Norway uses plural member constituencies. Hore doesn't have one MP for his area he has like 7 or 8.
How do plural member constituencies work?
The country is in chaos, I seriously doubt they're capable of accounting and getting hold of all their stuff.
I believe it's more of a ruse to buy some more time or to appear impartial or whatever.
Oh, it's no ruse for two reasons:
1. We do not care whether or not we appear impartial. That's just not a part of the equation.
2. I'm not the only one who contacted his reps. Congressmen across the country are receiving feedback from their constituents, and the sentiment is an overwhelming "NO". The people do NOT want to get involved.
An ultimatum would be a decent middle ground.
Sounds like a great way to build a one party system and rob most people of any voice in government.
I bet he loves it!
Norway also uses party list proportional representation. Specifically Sainte-Laguë method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Laguë_method)
How do plural member constituencies work?
Without the party list PR voting system it doesn't.
Pannonian
09-08-2013, 16:29
Norway also uses party list proportional representation. Specifically Sainte-Laguë method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Laguë_method)
Without the party list PR voting system it doesn't.
Isn't the party list method an open invitation for direct corruption? Do favours for the higher ups or be a good boy, and the higher up the list you're placed. At least the first past the post system allows local voters to upset candidates in supposedly safe seats.
ICantSpellDawg
09-08-2013, 17:34
I am 100% behind boots on the ground, arms and intel shipments, training of rebels, and a holistic and ongoing strategic bombing strike (of multiple factions within the conflict), but it is irritating when people attempt to relate this to "appeasement" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyF6DUimsgo) or our "munich moment" if we fail to do something. Failure to act would be unethical and a foolish strategic blunder, but it isn't on par with Neville Chamberlain guaranteeing the ruin of western Europe by allowing a powerful warmonger to bide his time and accomplish regime strengthening goals. Assad is going nowhere. If he were to regain power in Syria he would still be a nobody. The sole reason for intervention is to avoid further bloodshed and to incapacitate unfavorable insurgent camps in favor of those sympathetic to individual rights. The security of additional chemical weapons that may be in the hands of any number of factions within Syria necessitates actions even further if the attack was carried out by Salafist groups who still retain the capacity. There truly is no alternative to action that allows for an acceptable resolution.
Also, if a "clear and targeted strike" is the only outcome of the congressional dialogue, it would be a shameful waste of money and is unlikely to lead to a favorable outcome. If this is merely a pretext to begin an action, then I am in favor. I've always been against launching missiles into a tent or a camel's backside, but a strike similar to the one in Libya is just what is called for here.
Insanity, bombing Syria will not only make for more bloodshed directly, but even more in the aftermath. All christians and allawite muslims will be killed
ICantSpellDawg
09-08-2013, 18:26
Insanity, bombing Syria will not only make for more bloodshed directly, but even more in the aftermath. All christians and allawite muslims will be killed
All Christians will be persecuted if this continues to go on, or if Salafist jihadis keep regions within the nation or are successful in their insurgency.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4
Tellos Athenaios
09-08-2013, 18:50
Ah, Obama is going to show the congress the youtube video's everybody allready has seen. So if I get this right there was a chemical attack and that's it?
Apparently there is also this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html).
Tellos Athenaios
09-08-2013, 19:13
Sounds like a great way to build a one party system and rob most people of any voice in government.
I bet he loves it!
Not if they're from 7 or 8 different parties... That's the trick: actually having more than two one party to choose from in the first place.
How do plural member constituencies work?
You vote for the MP of your choice but maybe some others don't vote for him. A certain number of candidates get enough vote to hold one of the MP slots, the number of slots depends on how many people are in the constituency. That's what proportional in proportional representation means: by and large power is distributed according to electoral results across the nation, not according to gerrymandered safe seats.
Isn't the party list method an open invitation for direct corruption? Do favours for the higher ups or be a good boy, and the higher up the list you're placed. At least the first past the post system allows local voters to upset candidates in supposedly safe seats.
Not really, because the individual candidates still have to carry the votes. At least in the Netherlands we have a system whereby you vote specifically for the guy you want to occupy the seat, and there may be 10 - 30 or so of any one party to choose from. Which means that if "your" guy carries enough votes all by himself for a seat, he gets a seat. It's only any extra votes beyond the ones necessary for the seat count which are distributed by the party, and then again they are supposed to distribute to the next most popular guy first and so on.
It's a system which heavily favours coalitions as the number of voters increases, so with a few additional safe guards you get a system of representation which broadly reflects the electorate and is bound to it. As opposed to FPTP which can be gamed to perfection through gerrymandering for instance. The key thing here is that seats are not safe unless you have a very broad national appeal, and MPs are therefore not about bringing home the bacon to a particular regional constituency...
Apparently there is also this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html).
Yes, that must be the intercepted call of Assad disaproving the use of gas to defected generals who are part of the rebel forces
Fisherking
09-08-2013, 19:41
Apparently there is also this (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html).
Too bad the only people less believable than the NSA are the BND.
Anything the NSA says is ok by them and they will gladly swear to it and offer their own proof.
As for multiple political party systems, it is just fine. Just about anything beats America’s two party One Party System.
Did John Kerry give Obama an easy way out without losing all too much face? Whatever, if it means that there will be no war with the Syrian regime and Assad can continue his/our war with Al Quaida and other vermin yay
HopAlongBunny
09-10-2013, 06:55
A decent article: Gives a nice summation of US policy in the Gulf Region since Carter, with a clear emphasis on the use of force; can Congress muster enough thought and analysis to point a new way forward? will they punt? more of the same!?
It makes me feel like I'm watching Coronation Street unfold in real life! If nothing else, this baby has drama.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201399135155578455.html
Fisherking
09-10-2013, 12:16
I liked the ending:
Will members of the Senate and the House grasp the opportunity to undertake an urgently needed reassessment of America's War for the Greater Middle East? Or wriggling and squirming, will they inelegantly sidestep the issue, opting for short-term expediency in place of serious governance? In an age where the numbing blather of McCain, McConnell, and Reid have replaced the oratory of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, merely to pose the question is to answer it.
But let us not overlook the entertainment value of such an outcome, which could well be formidable. In all likelihood, high comedy Washington-style lurks just around the corner. So renew that subscription to The Onion. Keep an eye on Doonesbury. Set the TiVo to record Jon Stewart. This is going to be really funny - and utterly pathetic. Where's H.L. Mencken when we need him?
AntiDamascus
09-10-2013, 15:16
I liked the ending:
Will members of the Senate and the House grasp the opportunity to undertake an urgently needed reassessment of America's War for the Greater Middle East? Or wriggling and squirming, will they inelegantly sidestep the issue, opting for short-term expediency in place of serious governance? In an age where the numbing blather of McCain, McConnell, and Reid have replaced the oratory of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, merely to pose the question is to answer it.
The funny part of that is the Great Triumvirate worked so hard to come up with solutions and it was basically all for nothing anyways as we still had a bloody civil war. Not really an argument to what you said, just a little aside from me.
Fisherking
09-10-2013, 18:08
Syria Says it Accepts Russian Weapons Proposal
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/10/syria-says-it-accepts-russian-weapons-proposal.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Will it matter?
Sarmatian
09-10-2013, 19:15
Earlier, on Europe-1 radio, Fabius trumpeted Western pressure for leading to a "turnaround" in Russia's position: "At first the Russians denied there was a chemical weapons stockpile in Syria. Then, they denied a chemical attack. So, they have changed - very good!" he said.
Even though I haven't been following this particular story religiously, I don't remember that Russia denied either. Their position has been that there's no proof Assad did it.
Anyway, on the story, Russia's just upped the ante - intervention now means it was never about chemical weapons at all.
Can I get really worried now
Fisherking
09-10-2013, 19:59
Even though I haven't been following this particular story religiously, I don't remember that Russia denied either. Their position has been that there's no proof Assad did it.
Anyway, on the story, Russia's just upped the ante - intervention now means it was never about chemical weapons at all.
I'm with you on that. I have followed fairly close what has happened. Russia has accused the rebels of doing it etc, but never changed their position in the way outlined in the quote. Just more misinformation.
HopAlongBunny
09-10-2013, 22:22
The drama deepens:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/2013910181034925953.html
Will France get a declaration that includes force? Will the USA be persuaded to forgo that option? Will Russia stand at the head of a "peace coalition"?
Are we headed to peace and ponies or the climax of a Russian novel?
I can understand the wish to take force of the table, but I can't see a resolution w/o teeth satisfying the US.
HopAlongBunny
09-12-2013, 00:58
I guess both the US and Russia could look good with a settlement.
Of course, it will enrage those looking for a "solution" to the civil war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24058006
Kadagar_AV
09-12-2013, 16:55
Well played Putin... (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0)´Well played!!
I would have LOVED to listen in on the discussions in Pentagon and the White House.
Say what you want about Putin, but he sure has his moments ;)
Sarmatian
09-12-2013, 21:50
I'm amazed how western diplomats are consistently repeating this argument, without realizing they're shooting themselves in the foot
Russia has yet to provide details of how it sees the disarmament process working in Syria, in the middle of a civil war: how would stockpiles be verified, where would they be held, what would be the time frame?
Do they truly believe that anything short of a total military occupation can 100% verify all stockpiles are destroyed? Hurling a few missiles certainly isn't gonna ensure all stockpiles are destroyed and would be much, much less effective than Syria giving access to international inspectors.
This may prove to be a stumbling block on the other hand.
Russia has yet to provide details of how it sees the disarmament process working in Syria, in the middle of a civil war: how would stockpiles be verified, where would they be held, what would be the time frame?
HopAlongBunny
09-12-2013, 21:58
The process stumbles forward in Geneva:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/12/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE98A15720130912
Well played Putin... (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0)´Well played!!
I would have LOVED to listen in on the discussions in Pentagon and the White House.
Say what you want about Putin, but he sure has his moments ;)
There is a reason most grandmasters in chess are Russian. Well played indeed. Isn't it time to send Obama on trumpet-lessons and be done with it dear Americans. The guy is an idiot who is nowhere in the same lague. Truly epic fails aren't hilarious but dangerous
There is a reason most grandmasters in chess are Russian. Well played indeed. Isn't it time to send Obama on trumpet-lessons and be done with it dear Americans. The guy is an idiot who is nowhere in the same lague. Truly epic fails aren't hilarious but dangerous
The saddest part is that Mittens would have been x1000 times worse.
Kadagar_AV
09-13-2013, 05:55
I'm interested to hear from USAnians though, how the letter was recieved around the states...
What does the average Joe think? And so on...
a completely inoffensive name
09-13-2013, 07:00
Most conversation I hear in public regarding Syria begins and ends with something like this,
"and of course there is that whole Syria business we are waiting to see about."
Fisherking
09-13-2013, 08:33
I'm interested to hear from USAnians though, how the letter was recieved around the states...
What does the average Joe think? And so on...
Someone I know had this to say about it.
Looks like a good chance to work with the Russians for a change. Instead our politicians act like monkeys in a zoo throwing feces at the spectators
edit:I think I should add that some of my apolitical friends are upset by what is happening.
The Representatives from my state are firmly in the camp to support Obama on this, however.
They have been in the pocket of the Defense Industry for a long time.
But the military is not behind it at any level. The Top will just go along with what the politicians want but they are nearing a breaking point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
I'm interested to hear from USAnians though, how the letter was recieved around the states...
What does the average Joe think? And so on...I took it as the political equivalent of spiking the football. He made the Obama administration look feckless (not that they needed much help), and the NYT op-ed was his endzone dance...
We've completely ceded control of the Syria situation. Let's pray Putin doesn't alter the deal any further.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ
Too difficult for iPad, worthless pos simply can't do it, got other link
Just for Dutchies sadly http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/09/hans_jansen_1.html#more
But my favorite arabist professor Hans Jansen absolutily destroys Obama and leftist cheerleaders with an iron fist of reality
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/09/hans_jansen_1.html#more
Google translate should work but you will miss his inner mischievous nature
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 16:13
I am amazed ye have missed how weak the russian position is in reality, lets remember the only bar on US action is purely domestic politics.
Putin is trying to convince everyone that Russia is the equal of the US but he cannot stop a strike if one happens.
The chemical deal is a well played but essentially weak hand if it stalls the Arab states will press America to act.
Assad is probably on borrowed time hence russian efforts to prevent an American strike.
The way I see it America wins either way, if Assad wins (which he wont) he will be hugely weakened an if he is toppled it will be years before any new potentially hostile regieme can act against Israel/US.
Hizbollah is also weakening/weakened meaning that stirke on Iran looks more tempting too. Iran must be :daisy: bricks at the thought of this chem deal not working out or worse working out and still assad falls.
If the chem weapons are removed then Israels security will be enhanced even if/when assad falls, an when he does then Hizbollah will lose a vital sponsor and corridor for Iranian weapons.
Must admit that makes perfect sense.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 17:22
The Russian hand is as strong as it is.
You want to call? Go all in?
Facts are, Putin just schooled Obama in "matters of democracy and equal rights". SCHOOLED!!
That says a LOT of what the USA has become :(
Dunno, Gaelic Cowboy makes an excellent point, only question then is why Putin's position is so weak. Just musing, this is an easy way out for both Obama and Putin, nobody loses any face in the grand game.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 17:57
Dunno, Gaelic Cowboy makes an excellent point, only question then is why Putin's position is so weak. Just musing, this is an easy way out for both Obama and Putin, nobody loses any face in the grand game.
Really?
No, really? You think so?
Obama and the USA has lost so much face it's not even fun, RED LINE and all that.
I start to understand why seemingly all the great chess players are Russian :)
Check mate... And if ANYONE think the USA "won" this.. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Really?
No, really? You think so?
Obama and the USA has lost so much face it's not even fun, RED LINE and all that.
I start to understand why seemingly all the great chess players are Russian :)
Check mate... And if ANYONE think the USA "won" this.. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No I don't think so, how could I know. But the scenario where everybody backs off right now speaks in favour of what Gaelic Cowboy said, that our Russian bear at least has more to consider. I think he's right really.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 18:20
Obama can wait as long as he likes Putin needs to deliver by the end next week.
The idea of face saving misses the point the US has options while Russia has only one, they deliver or face down the USA millitarily :laugh4: sorry I cant even keep a straight face here.
The problem with chess is that a match is longer than one move which is essentially what we have here.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 18:22
No I don't think so, how could I know. But the scenario where everybody backs off right now speaks in favour of what Gaelic Cowboy said, that our Russian bear at least has more to consider. I think he's right really.
The Russian bear is what it is.
USA came out of this as a yapping puppy though.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 18:33
Obama has merely had a domestic policy setback which encouraged him to accept a Russian offer of mediation.
Russian is in the geopolitical fight of it's life to save a crumbling ally, and IF/WHEN this deal breaks next week or the week after the US will act.
Check mate... And if ANYONE think the USA "won" this.. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
there is your problem in a nutshell the USA doesnt need to WIN this game, disorder works just as well for the US as it is strategically safer than Russia
Papewaio
09-14-2013, 18:35
Obama can wait as long as he likes Putin needs to deliver by the end next week.
The idea of face saving misses the point the US has options while Russia has only one, they deliver or face down the USA millitarily :laugh4: sorry I cant even keep a straight face here.
The problem with chess is that a match is longer than one move which is essentially what we have here.
If it happens without a UN resolution then that is a dangerous game to play. If you think US credibility could go any lower then by all means go for it.
But I would make sure that you have the Arab states and China backing you to the hilt.
The Russian bear is what it is.
USA came out of this as a yapping puppy though.
That's what I thought as well but I am kinda doubting it right now..
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 18:48
Obama can wait as long as he likes Putin needs to deliver by the end next week.
The idea of face saving misses the point the US has options while Russia has only one, they deliver or face down the USA millitarily :laugh4: sorry I cant even keep a straight face here.
The problem with chess is that a match is longer than one move which is essentially what we have here.
Well, obviously you don't read the writing on the wall from the same perspective as me. Alternately you read the same writing but can't fathom it.
You ARE aware that there is a world out there? A non-USA world?
And in that world, USA just got :clown:
Heck, even the Robin (England) to your Batman struck you down...
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 18:49
If it happens without a UN resolution then that is a dangerous game to play. If you think US credibility could go any lower then by all means go for it.
But I would make sure that you have the Arab states and China backing you to the hilt.
It was always going to be without a resolution as China and Russia were always going to try to stop it.
The Arabs can back both the strike or the deal in order to help there proxies inside syria (secretly there preference will be a strike)
Papewaio
09-14-2013, 18:51
Russia is just the pretty distraction, Syria the rabbit in the hat.
I'm much more interested in the implications for the magician China and its understudy India.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 18:54
Here's the problem with Kadagar and the rest of you Europeans:
You think this is a game with winners and losers, whereas Americans know better. Russia is a weak, weak, nation with a failing population, a tyrannical government, and more abandoned warehouses filled with military hardware than you could shake a stick at. If that's the horse that anti-American sentiment is hanging its' hat on, then us Americans will just laugh.
Exactly the USA doesnt need to win essentially because it is strategically secure and has multiple options unlike Russia.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 18:56
Here's the problem with Kadagar and the rest of you Europeans:
You think this is a game with winners and losers, whereas Americans know better. Russia is a weak, weak, nation with a failing population, a tyrannical government, and more abandoned warehouses filled with military hardware than you could shake a stick at. If that's the horse that anti-American sentiment is hanging its' hat on, then us Americans will just laugh.
So... Your point is that the USA can withstand a(nother) war where other countries actively dump money, personal and weapons into it?
You think the economic world would give you a free pass? Or do you think the economic world think the US stance as retarded - in the light of recent happenings?
USA is strong, EMPEROR OF THE WORLD (I would say!)
Problem is that someone just said that the Emperor is naked...
I will repeat that point and enhance the point so that even the less educated understand it - USA just got called on a bluff.
USA's response has been to roll over like a good li'l puppy.
Here's the problem with Kadagar and the rest of you Europeans:
You think this is a game with winners and losers, whereas Americans know better. Russia is a weak, weak, nation with a failing population, a tyrannical government, and more abandoned warehouses filled with military hardware than you could shake a stick at. If that's the horse that anti-American sentiment is hanging its' hat on, then us Americans will just laugh.
Don't look at me, I'll be the first to buy you beer. Should I ever visit visit that godforsaken hillybilly nightmare of yours. I promise I will leave nothing untouched or unharmed.
Wait, I allready did, hardly Hiroshima I'll do a better job next time
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 19:00
Russia is just the pretty distraction, Syria the rabbit in the hat.
I'm much more interested in the implications for the magician China and its understudy India.
China will steer clear of this in my view they will be happy to let Russia expend resources confronting the US.
Any long term confrontation will mean Russia would need to sell resources to China and they would love that.
"Russia is a weak, weak, nation with a failing population, a tyrannical government, " It didn't prevent A. Hitler to loose the war on USSR.
"then us Americans will just laugh" Until first body bags. The problem with you, USAnian, is you underestimated the rest of the World. And to be against US policy (ies) is not to be "anti-American".
AntiDamascus
09-14-2013, 19:06
China really I believe, and I have been told by people who should know, wants to remain a regional power. They want to have the guiding hand in things that happen in Asia and little elsewhere. As long as it doesn't directly affect them really, China is probably willing to go along with the other major powers on the subject. They really want that soft power.
Papewaio
09-14-2013, 19:08
So... Your point is that the USA can withstand a(nother) war where other countries actively dump money, personal and weapons into it?
You think the economic world would give you a free pass? Or do you think the economic world think the US stance as retarded - in the light of recent happenings?
USA is strong, EMPEROR OF THE WORLD (I would say!)
Problem is that someone just said that the Emperor is naked...
I will repeat that point and enhance the point so that even the less educated understand it - USA just got called on a bluff.
USA's response has been to roll over like a good li'l puppy.
This is not the US rolling over. This is an internal politics joust between a democrat POTUS tilting at the windmills of a republican congress.
Also the logistical approach to Iraq and Afghanistan was wrong. If the US gears up from day one with a long term approach to deployment and a surge approach they could easily do Syria.
It is not a military might issue. It is a matter of support both political and logistics. Both of which need significant support from the populace.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 19:12
So... Your point is that the USA can withstand a(nother) war where other countries actively dump money, personal and weapons into it?
They can just blast it to kingdom and then turn on American's Got Talent, there will be no need to actually go there.
You think the economic world would give you a free pass? Or do you think the economic world think the US stance as retarded - in the light of recent happenings?
The world can think what it likes they will still buy coca cola.
USA is strong, EMPEROR OF THE WORLD (I would say!)
Problem is that someone just said that the Emperor is naked...
A naked emporer can still have you hanged
I will repeat that point and enhance the point so that even the less educated understand it - USA just got called on a bluff.
No Russian upped the stakes and Obama has seen the bet Russian now must stay in a game it was barely in a month ago.
I can see no outcome where Assad wins hence Russia loses the game.
USA's response has been to roll over like a good li'l puppy.
puppies can bite ye too
Opting out. I like Americans they are nice people. All my offensive comments were sarcastic GC, just so you know
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 19:20
"Russia is a weak, weak, nation with a failing population, a tyrannical government, " It didn't prevent A. Hitler to loose the war on USSR.
The lesson here is when invading Russia you start in Asia.
Papewaio
09-14-2013, 19:22
A naked emporer can still have you hanged
They also could be well hung.
“Navy and Air Force is more than capable of throwing our weight” Yeap.
How tanks did your Navy and Air Force destroyed during the Air Campaign against Serbia (36,000 sorties were flown dropping 23,000 bombs and missiles)... Ah, yeah: 13, at the cost of one “invisible” bomber and few others. You over-estimate Air Power.
They were much better on civilians I give you this…
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 19:24
They also could be well hung.
bah dum bish
"The lesson here is when invading Russia you start in Asia." Didn't work for the Japansses at Khalkhin Gol. :laugh4:
Fisherking
09-14-2013, 19:33
What bluff? Our economy would love a brief air-war or some missile strikes. Those are made in the USA, create jobs, keep congressmen in office, and do all kinds of other magical things for the US economy. We LOVE bombing shit. The only thing that happened here is that the American people were given a heads-up and an out, and Obama had to pretend like peace was what he really wanted. I'm sure if he had his way, we'd be several days into the bombing campaign by now.
And what the fuck is Russia going to do about it? They're still recovering from the economic ass-whooping we gave them in the '80s. The have half our population, less than half our economy, and the only thing keeping them afloat is the sale of arms to tin-pot dictators like Assad, and the sale of Gas to weak European nations that spend more time hoping the USA will fall than worrying about their own problems.
We're not going anywhere. We're still the strongest any way you want to measure it, and even if our Army is a bit frazzled our Navy and Air Force is more than capable of throwing our weight around internationally. Don't expose your stripes and jump on the "down with 'merica!" band-wagon so fast. Its only round 1, and we're a 12-round prize-fighter. Something weak little European nations don't know much about.
Don’t get your knickers in a twist.
The leadership appears indecisive because the whole premise was phony to start with.
When GB bailed out and France took a wait and see it gave Russia an opening to look like a peace maker.
Meanwhile, the Defense Industry wants this so bad they can taste it but the American people are unimpressed with the explanations. It isn’t like they don’t remember all the lies and scandals just past.
Obama can come off looking like a bully or a boob. I’ll make bets saying something else gets put forward, another false flag of some sort, and he gets the war that he wants, and the public be damned.
This is just round 1.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 19:40
"The lesson here is when invading Russia you start in Asia." Didn't work for the Japansses at Khalkhin Gol. :laugh4:
The lesson here is never let Russia sign a millitary treaty with Germany.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:04
Mine too. American arrogance is the only answer for Swedish upstarts. :laugh4:
Did... Did an USAnian just call an European "upstart"?
The United States of America just got schooled in the world of international politics. USAnians can yapp yapp all they want, facts are that your bluff was called by Russia, and now the only question is how you lose face the least.
This has NOTHING, I will repeat NOTHING to do with military strength. It's about throwing your weight around.
And the USA just showed their weight internationally... *golfclap*
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:10
Yes upstart. Don't take credit for what your ancestors did. Modern Europe is full of complacent nations with unjustified egos.
I'm not sure we read the word "upstart" the same.
From my vocabulary it would be an absolute joke to call Europeans "upstart" in comparison to the USA.
But then, I have an education (Drats! Life would be easier without!)
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 20:17
Did... Did an USAnian just call an European "upstart"?
The United States of America just got schooled in the world of international politics. USAnians can yapp yapp all they want, facts are that your bluff was called by Russia, and now the only question is how you lose face the least.
This has NOTHING, I will repeat NOTHING to do with military strength. It's about throwing your weight around.
And the USA just showed their weight internationally... *golfclap*
I dont get your assertion that America bluffed Assad in this thing how do you come to this conclusion. Foreign policy is the one area an American president can act freely in. If Obama can act then we can be pretty sure that the USA would have hit Syria eventually and all the voting craic was merely for a domestic audience.
This isnt a bluff by either side they have merely upped the stakes.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:20
You grew up in the Pax Americana and now young Europeans like to pretend they weren't complicit in setting it up.
You come out of left field opportunistically crying foul. Upstarts. You aren't even the same nations you were fifty years ago. If you are a free European then you are a product of American might. Quit being an upstart. Even if your nation was untouched by world war 2, it was still re-made in our image.
I... Don't know where to begin.
I'm not sure you get what the word "pax" means. Honestly, I seriously question that you understand your own sentence.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 20:27
I... Don't know where to begin.
I'm not sure you get what the word "pax" means. Honestly, I seriously question that you understand your own sentence.
You know fine well what that term means so dont play the fool.
GC is completely right your ability to shout "down with this sort of thing" is indeed a fully packaged product of American power.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:29
Its okay. A european complaining about America is like a flea complaining about the dog its attached to.
America, both the upper north and the vast south seem to do OK generally. At least they don't long for a WWIII.
It's the uneducated capitalistic USAnians I worry about. :no:
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:31
You know fine well what that term means so dont play the fool.
GC is completely right your ability to shout "down with this sort of thing" is indeed a fully packaged product of American power.
I do. Are you drunk?
Read my post again, and then explain how that post of yours make sense (or just go to bed, mate).
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:40
Pax Americana is a catch-all term referring to the loose peace that has existed in the western world since the end of WWII, and the reason Russia has been impotent and only slightly irritating since the end of the Cold War. It also has lots of tin-foily connotations, but I don't mean it that way.
As we both know, "pax" means "peace".
Has the USA even managed like a decade of any sort peace?
The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.
USAnians get spit in their coffee pretty much wherever they go, if not roadside bombs and snipers in the more hot zones.
Face it, you are the bad guys in the Karate Kid Movie.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 20:42
I do. Are you drunk?
Read my post again, and then explain how that post of yours make sense (or just go to bed, mate).
It's an expression we use to underline that the other person is pretending they DONT KNOW
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:48
Like the romans, we view peace as relative. You know that.
Of course you do, you capitalistic minion you.
But Rome held it up for some hundred years, whereas the USA don't even have a history that long.
Just face it, USA got schooled by Russia.
We can play "make pretend" all day, but facts are facts...
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 20:56
Of course you do, you capitalistic minion you.
But Rome held it up for some hundred years, whereas the USA don't even have a history that long.
Just face it, USA got schooled by Russia.
We can play "make pretend" all day, but facts are facts...
Get real man your facts are that Russia is attempting to save an ally that needed to use chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus.
How strong is Assads position that he needs to use sarin just outside his capital city
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 20:58
We did not get schooled lol. That would imply we lost something. Before this Assad denied having gas and Russia was supporting Assad from a distance. Now assad is giving up his weapons and the Russians are entangled with a losing cause. And we still retain freedom of action by way of having overwhelming force off the levantine coast.
What did Russia win exactly?
Face.
And international respect.
You know, those li'l gems of the world that nations struggle for - that money can't buy.
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 21:05
Get real man your facts are that Russia is attempting to an ally that needed to use chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus.
How strong is Assads position that he needs to use sarin just outside his capital city
Oh mate, stop watching Fox "news".
Both sides are accusing the other of having done it, your lenience is only due to YOUR media.
With THAT said, I still struggle to understand why USA should drop bombs on people?
Kadagar_AV
09-14-2013, 21:11
Poppycock. Since when has face mattered to us? We are strongest when we think the world is against us. International face is not a currency we trade in, and one we barely give lip service to.
We obviously don't read the same history books.
Nor do we have the current medial landscape in common.
So... You'r idea is REALLY that the USAnians capitalistic military world view is like THE progressive movement? And to hell with all the facts!! :wall:
Pannonian
09-14-2013, 21:20
We obviously don't read the same history books.
Nor do we have the current medial landscape in common.
So... You'r idea is REALLY that the USAnians capitalistic military world view is like THE progressive movement? And to hell with all the facts!! :wall:
Whatever its faults, Pax Americana is the best practical option around. And I speak as a citizen of the previous superpower whom the Americans shafted at the end of the last war. It says much that even today developing countries look to America for an example of freedom and prosperity. Of course, they don't look to America for culture and civilisation, but that's what Britain is for.
Sarmatian
09-14-2013, 22:09
Can we dispense with "my nations is the best" talk, please? Thank you. Backroom was supposed to a slightly more mature place for political discussion on the internet, don't turn it into reddit or whatnot. And, besides, we all know Serbia is the best, so stop your yappin'.
I am amazed ye have missed how weak the russian position is in reality, lets remember the only bar on US action is purely domestic politics.
Putin is trying to convince everyone that Russia is the equal of the US but he cannot stop a strike if one happens.
The chemical deal is a well played but essentially weak hand if it stalls the Arab states will press America to act.
Assad is probably on borrowed time hence russian efforts to prevent an American strike.
The way I see it America wins either way, if Assad wins (which he wont) he will be hugely weakened an if he is toppled it will be years before any new potentially hostile regieme can act against Israel/US.
Hizbollah is also weakening/weakened meaning that stirke on Iran looks more tempting too. Iran must be :daisy: bricks at the thought of this chem deal not working out or worse working out and still assad falls.
If the chem weapons are removed then Israels security will be enhanced even if/when assad falls, an when he does then Hizbollah will lose a vital sponsor and corridor for Iranian weapons.
I don't know what are you considering Russian interests to be, but I don't believe they have anything to do with Hezbollah or Israel's security. They're interested in keeping a presence in the middle east, keeping a port and having someone buy their arms.
Assad was considered "done", then he started getting the upper hand up until the moment with the whole gas incident, when it appeared that some kind of American intervention is inevitable. Russian diplomatic initiative stopped American intervention, at least for the time being, and allowed Russia to promote itself in the international politics.
That's a pure win. And, at least in my book, it is also a win for USA. Maybe not for some from the MIC, but for USA as a whole, it is.
Pax Americana is a catch-all term referring to the loose peace that has existed in the western world since the end of WWII, and the reason Russia has been impotent and only slightly irritating since the end of the Cold War. It also has lots of tin-foily connotations, but I don't mean it that way.
You don't really understand Russian position, or their motives and goals during the Cold War, or even now. I understand that western propaganda portrayed Soviet Union/Russia as an evil expansionist empire, bent on world domination, a godless horde coming to exterminate American way of life and blah, blah, blah... but the truth is, especially after WW2, SU/Russia have been so inward looking and concerned almost entirely with their own security. They have a fear, almost a phobia, that someone is out to get them. Eastern Bloc wasn't about Russia exporting communism and a preparation for a world conquest but a collection of buffer states to protect them from western invasion.
Russia isn't a class bully, Russia's that big guy in the back who had serious trauma as a kid and is jumpy whenever someone makes a move in his general direction.
gaelic cowboy
09-14-2013, 22:19
@ sarmation the sponsor and corridor refers to syria not russia ie israels security is enhanced if assad falls as hizbolah freedom of action is reduced. Even if he doesnt fall (whch I fell is unlikely) Hizbolah are now engaged in the syrian civil war and will likely be weakend for some time after it ends.
russian interests are in status quo but that seems less amd less likely
Ironside
09-14-2013, 23:19
As we both know, "pax" means "peace".
Has the USA even managed like a decade of any sort peace?
The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.
Pax Romana wasn't that peaceful. It just meant that Rome had little expansion (they did take Britain, Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was during this period for example) and had internal peace instead of civil wars. It's also coined by an historian 250 years ago, not by the Romans. Proxy wars works perfectly fine for that term.
Now GC is severly misusing upstart though, since it's all about demeaning the newer power because they don't have the proper age. So Lithuania could call the US upstarts, but the US can't call Europe that (nor China). They can call Brazil that.
Rhyfelwyr
09-14-2013, 23:55
Its okay. A european complaining about America is like a flea complaining about the dog its attached to.
Well according to the IMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)), GDP in $millions during 2012 were:
EU - 16,641,109
USA - 15,684,750
Statistics from the World Bank and CIA World Factbook gave pretty much the same result. And of course, that only includes EU members states, thus ignoring some of Europe's wealthiest countries (Norway, Switzerland)
That is one big, scary flea!
Rhyfelwyr
09-15-2013, 00:10
Are you suggesting the EU could be considered one nation? The USA certainly can.
Hmm well I suppose not, although minus the UK, Europe tends to have some sort of coherence in terms of international policy, and the common market etc seem hugely significant if we are talking about economic power (aka, the real power).
Regardless of that, the EU actually outweighs the US in economic might, and most of that wealth is shared by the 4-5 big nations. The flea analogy seems a bit extreme (although by calling it "one flea" I was equally overboard and misleading)!
Face.
And international respect.
You know, those li'l gems of the world that nations struggle for - that money can't buy.
Awww, that's cute. You know what, let 'em have it, they deserve it. If this deal holds, we will save a whole bunch of money in the process, plus relieve a dictator of his WMDs. Let the Russians have whatever it is that "money can't buy" while we concentrate on getting what money can buy. It's a fair trade imho.
So, chew on that. International Face? Are you kidding me? The only reason Syria isn't being bombed into the stone-age right now is because of people like rvg. International Face? lol
Indeed.
Tellos Athenaios
09-15-2013, 03:48
I am amazed ye have missed how weak the russian position is in reality, lets remember the only bar on US action is purely domestic politics.
Putin is trying to convince everyone that Russia is the equal of the US but he cannot stop a strike if one happens.
Au contraire, Putin does not have anything to lose but everything to gain. Precedent tends to matter in international relations, hence the song and dance about the UN Security Council & Resolutions. Even Cheney understood as much. Everyone feels compelled to join in; effectively Putin has a week or so time-out to apply pressure on the Assad regime should he choose to. But, he does not need to.
His Oped is a dual edged sword. The one edge is in convincing the American public, and by extension the American Congress into pressuring Obama to back off. Whether or not Russia is capable to stare down the USA in international politics is irrelevant if Putin can manage to co-opt the domestic political currents of the USA and turn the issue to his advantage that way.
The other edge is in the potential to curtail USA power by curtailing the executive power within the USA. The War Powers Act and subsequent doctrines imply that whoever sits at the negotiating table for the USA can pretend to have that power at his command, instantly. Requiring a full blown declaration of war or any other authorisation from Congress adds uncertainty and weakness to the negotiating position of the US executive branch, which in turn should make them more pliable and more cautious and less interventionist in international affairs.
Third, it his Oped has a point. Successful, prestige projects like international relations create political capital which might come in handy should you ever need to survive a power struggle in Russia. Whichever way you put it, Putin can turn and point at his Oped as an exhibit should he ever have to supply proof of competence or knowledge in international relationships. Putin is well known for projecting the "though leader" type image and getting international credit is important if he wants to convince the Russians that Russia is back in the international game.
The chemical deal is a well played but essentially weak hand if it stalls the Arab states will press America to act.
The only ones with a weaker hand in this than Russia are the Arab states.
Assad is probably on borrowed time hence russian efforts to prevent an American strike.
I think the Russian efforts are more to do with sensing the political climate in the USA proper, and extracting some profit from it. Whether it succeeds or not, the talk was cheap (Russia would not be embarrassed if the US turns out to ignore their advice) and there could be profit in it.
The way I see it America wins either way, if Assad wins (which he wont) he will be hugely weakened an if he is toppled it will be years before any new potentially hostile regieme can act against Israel/US.
Don't conflate the two. You might just as well say Russia/Israel. The two are quite cosy, actually. Russia is not interested in war with the USA in any case; or to paraphrase: Putin wins either way.
Hizbollah is also weakening/weakened meaning that stirke on Iran looks more tempting too. Iran must be :daisy: bricks at the thought of this chem deal not working out or worse working out and still assad falls.
If the chem weapons are removed then Israels security will be enhanced even if/when assad falls, an when he does then Hizbollah will lose a vital sponsor and corridor for Iranian weapons.
Iran is a special case, but I don't doubt that Russia is quite happy to see the backs of Hezbollah. Russia has no love for religiously inspired militias of any stripe, they prefer corruptible government officials whom they can actually sell stuff to. They have a bit of an arms business, too. Additionally Russia may well be worried about the chemicals falling into the hands of those rebel militias once the regime is toppled and do not want to see any such weapons making it out of Syria whatever the cost. The risk is those weapons making it into Russia: they still have the Black Widows and their ilk to consider.
As for a strike on Iran: based on what grounds, exactly?
---------------
And yes, Obama got "schooled" inasmuch that the Oped uses his own political move (going to Congress in order to assert legitimacy of his decisions and pass on responsibility) as part of the ploy. Had Obama asserted his War Powers it would never have worked, but now we're in "write-a-Congress-critter-for-fun-and-profit" season it is very deftly done indeed.
As we both know, "pax" means "peace".
Has the USA even managed like a decade of any sort peace?
The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.
USAnians get spit in their coffee pretty much wherever they go, if not roadside bombs and snipers in the more hot zones.
Face it, you are the bad guys in the Karate Kid Movie.
How many WESTERN nations have fought EACHOTHER after WW2?
Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that. So yeah Pax America.
Savages. (French), don't worry about clicking the poor sod isn't beheaded yet
Many beheadings by Syrian rebels, including a catholic priest & other christians but also sunni muslims.
Nice bunch. Alllahuh akhbar
“Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that.” ?
If it is about the liberation of Europe, I suggest looking at a map of front lines in June 1944, eastern ones…
Now, if you speak of Marshall Plan, I suggest looking at the elections and place of Communist Parties in France and Italy…
So, yes, thanks to the fact that Germany attacked the USA in New York, they came and fight their share to defeat the Nazi, and then they helped in the reconstruction (against bases in Europe).
“In terms of Realpolitik, those dead Serbs paved our missile factories' hallways with gold.” Agree. The best part is that the EU paid the bills, for the war and the re-buildings… You have to give this the USAnians, they know business.
“International face is not a currency we trade in, and one we barely give lip service to” And you want to do business with Chinese? Or with any Asiatic Civilisations? You will have to learn fast…:laugh4:
The term was coined by the Roman Empire. Romans could go around, and would be respected as they brought peace.
Did you skip past the chapter on Teutoburg or..?
HoreTore
09-17-2013, 11:23
How many WESTERN nations have fought EACHOTHER after WW2?
Exactly. The EU loves to have that fact for themselves, but anyone with half an education knows we have to thank America for that. So yeah Pax America.
My dear heavens, I agree with frags on something related to the EU!
Like Pax Romana, the Pax Americana only matters within its hegemony. Rome had no civil wars, the US has had no wars between western powers. Both still had foreign wars.
I'd say that the lack of wars in the western world is due to the US, but the level of cooperation we see in Europe is due to the EU.
My dear heavens, I agree with frags on something related to the EU!
That can't be right
I'd say the introduction of nuclear weapons is the actual deterrant. Power projection for the USA is costly. If the UK and France wanted another 100 years war (and there were no WMDs, especially nukes), why would the USA intervene? It costs a lot of money to cross the ocean and land troops on the shore of western Europe. Could they do it continously when animocity between nations sparks a conflict? Because there's a lot of history between the nations of Europe and everyone has a bone to pick with... everyone else.
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 13:06
Excellent rebuttal (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/19-09-2013/125705-McCain_for_pravda_ru-0/) from McCain.
Too bad he's allied with the loonies.
Sarmatian
09-19-2013, 16:03
Excellent rebuttal (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/19-09-2013/125705-McCain_for_pravda_ru-0/) from McCain.
Too bad he's allied with the loonies.
I like this part the best
I believe you deserve the opportunity to improve your lives in an economy that is built to last and benefits the many, not just the powerful few.
Now, the question is, why does he fight for the opposite in America...
If I were Russia, I'd tell him to take his condescending and patronizing remarks and shove them, but I'm not Rusian, so I can just say: Yes, massa... :whip: :hail:
HoreTore
09-19-2013, 20:53
I like this part the best
Now, the question is, why does he fight for the opposite in America...
If I were Russia, I'd tell him to take his condescending and patronizing remarks and shove them, but I'm not Rusian, so I can just say: Yes, massa... :whip: :hail:
Even the US is far from the cleptocracy Russia has.
Russia is starting to look more and more like Sicily, but with government sanction and worse movies.
Sarmatian
09-19-2013, 21:36
Even the US is far from the cleptocracy Russia has.
Debatable, but let's not go there.
Russia is starting to look more and more like Sicily, but with government sanction and worse movies.
C'mon, even you have to agree that Mccain's letter was an excuse of a comeback to Putin's letter, and it failed miserably.
I agree with you on the movies. But, Battleship Potemkin is still a masterpiece.
Apparently the fighting between the FSA (which is hardly a single organized group) and the more hardline Jihadis has begun to overshadow the civil war against the regime. Western journalists are assumed to be spies. Assad apparently gets a year to disarm. I'd say the forces of democracy have been defeated and/or sidelined, and the world's job here is done.
Funny how I don't think I've seen a single force of democracy in this whole ordeal.
Sarmatian
09-19-2013, 21:49
A complicated question. Between the great powers playing their power games, a country in a volatile region with troubled history, dictators, terrorists, jihadists, mass murderers and organ eaters, it's really hard to say.
“Because there's a lot of history between the nations of Europe and everyone has a bone to pick with... everyone else” How many wars USA had waged on neighbours from the beginning?
Just on Mexico? Cuba, Canada, South America, annexing of Hawaii, foreign excursions (even in Mediterranean Sea), China, this only during the 19th Century.
The US isolationism is a Myth. The USA is a young and aggressive country that developed on one of the most aggressive colonialism. What USA couldn’t buy, they took it. The 20th Century was nearly the same in term of expansion and wars, not entirely by USA own decision, but the post-WW2 saw a deliberate move of this country toward wars under various pretexts/reasons.
Debatable, but let's not go there.
Why not go there? Things in Russia are so much worse than here in the States, that there's no comparison really.
Yeah, yeah, not news. Every western nation with the opportunity has gone for Empire, its our nature. We folks of European descent are violent, cynical, and exploitative. America is the European set free on a bountiful continent, and later a defeated world, that was not equipped to handle it. We're not the first and won't be the last, as the European mindset is now the global mindset. When we finally tire of asserting ourselves (or, hopefully, decide against it) someone else will step up and start bullying everybody. I just hope we quit while we're ahead, so we can at least live well within our borders.
Yeah, Europe must be the biggest cemetary in the world it is rediculous
Timelaps (posted by other orger in monastary)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1348362692#oY3QDj7dzj8YtDJZ.01
Sarmatian
09-20-2013, 06:41
Why not go there? Things in Russia are so much worse than here in the States, that there's no comparison really.
Discussion about how much of a cleptocracy Russia is at the moment and compared to what, is gonna derail the thread even more. Of course things in Russia are worse than in the US.
“Yeah, yeah, not news.” Well. It looks like it is news for a lot of USAnians. Always telling how the Europeans Nations are fighting each other’s when the Peace loving USA was growing-up and prospered under nice and gentle successful Administrations. The “let’s the Europeans having their wars and us making business with all of them” party…
a completely inoffensive name
09-20-2013, 07:23
What's with the growing popularity of the term "USAnians"? Are Europeans becoming indignant on behalf of Latin America over the term "Americans"?
Not something we say here at least, most europeans like the Americans, resentment of America is pretty strong in scandinavia though, but they kinda dislike everyone, especially the Germans.
Nice to hear Fragony speak for all of Europe again.
Tellos Athenaios
09-20-2013, 13:46
Yeah, Europe must be the biggest cemetary in the world it is rediculous
Timelaps (posted by other orger in monastary)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14d_1348362692#oY3QDj7dzj8YtDJZ.01
Really, all that map shows is that Europe (and in particular Central Europe) is highly desirable territory with lots of prime real estate. :shrug: Still, we've got nothing, absolutely nothing on the Fertile Crescent or the Far East.
Yeah, yeah, not news. Every western nation with the opportunity has gone for Empire, its our nature. We folks of European descent are violent, cynical, and exploitative. America is the European set free on a bountiful continent, and later a defeated world, that was not equipped to handle it. We're not the first and won't be the last, as the European mindset is now the global mindset. When we finally tire of asserting ourselves (or, hopefully, decide against it) someone else will step up and start bullying everybody. I just hope we quit while we're ahead, so we can at least live well within our borders.
Don't disparage your Western heritage for that. Remember your Aztecs and your Asian empire heritage as well.
Sarmatian
09-20-2013, 14:21
You must know so many of us!
I'll never tire of European arrogance. I just hope we have the good sense to stay neutral and get rich the next time you all start killin eachother.
As opposed to not staying neutral and getting rich, like last time? You can get something by staying neutral, but the big money is when you get involved.
HoreTore
09-20-2013, 14:58
What's with the growing popularity of the term "USAnians"? Are Europeans becoming indignant on behalf of Latin America over the term "Americans"?
It's a flag telling you not to bother reading the rest of the post.
"You must know so many of us!" Some. I worked with the UN in the past... Nice people...
"I just hope we have the good sense to stay neutral and get rich the next time you all start killin eachother." It will depend if you are attacked again by Japan or Mexico...
Kadagar_AV
09-20-2013, 22:10
I think that's just a thing Kadagar started
... And I love how it caught on :bow:
I see it as a gentle reminder to our fellow USAnians, and the rest of the world of course, that America has WAY more to offer than just the fundamentalist black sheep of the family.
ON TOPIC: Let's face it, Russia and USA just did the good ol' "good cop bad cop".
USA: We WilZ NukE U LoLz!!
Russia: We can sort this if you just tell us what weapons and where...
There is a REASON why they call it a classic :laugh4:
Alrighty, looks like all US and British aid to the Syrian rebs has been suspended (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25331241). Glad to see the common sense finally prevail.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2013, 04:49
The logical result of not committing earlier, really.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-12-2013, 06:01
The logical result of not committing earlier, really.
Agreed. Civil wars aren't very civil.
Best answer: make a choice relatively early to intervene (go whole hawg if you do) or not (usually the better choice). If it is "not," then don't send them anything of any kind.
Or it could be then Assad was not as guilty as it seems. Or, let's put it differently: the other side is as bad than he is.
Well at least the rebels have grown more humane, they now behead people by shooting heads off with a .50 cal. At least it's quiker than slowly cutting it off. Still messy though. It's an improvement but there are still some points that need to be adressed imho.
HopAlongBunny
12-12-2013, 20:51
This is just the problem with overthrowing governments:
Once the shooting starts and arms and money start to flow=>everyone wants the throne
Eventually it will come down to the deepest pockets and best (most efficient) organization
Libya. Syria, Iraq and to a large extent Russia
Welcome to the revolution!
Sarmatian
12-12-2013, 22:32
I find it weird that this happened mere days after some sources from the UN strongly hinted that the investigation will show Assad is to blame for the gas attack.
I find it weird that this happened mere days after some sources from the UN strongly hinted that the investigation will show Assad is to blame for the gas attack.
Which is kinda odd since smugglers of chemical weapons have been busted at the Turkish border
HoreTore
12-13-2013, 00:58
Which is kinda odd since smugglers of chemical weapons have been busted at the Turkish border
Yet again, nuance is lost on the Frag. Chemicals were smuggled across the Turkish border, not chemical weapons.
I find it weird that this happened mere days after some sources from the UN strongly hinted that the investigation will show Assad is to blame for the gas attack.
Proxy-war with Russia.
Western Governments lost their democratic mandate over Syria, which severely weakened their resolved to move onto Syria. Syria regime was backed by the Russians. In order to peacefully solve it, Putin came in with the idea of disarming Syria of their chemical weapons, so even though Syria did it, they can no longer do it, so the cause of war where such weapons were being used on the people were removed. Once they accepted the deal, it was the poisoned apple, Western Governments lost any mandate to support the rebels, thus they have no choice than to pull out as they dropped the ball on the situation.
Thus, Russia won. Wars aren't simply fought from the goodness of peoples hearts.
Yet again, nuance is lost on the Frag. Chemicals were smuggled across the Turkish border, not chemical weapons.
What do you reckon these chemicals were for. A rocket is just a delivery-system you can equip them with My Little Pony's. The chemicals are the weapon.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-13-2013, 14:58
Proxy-war with Russia.
Western Governments lost their democratic mandate over Syria, which severely weakened their resolved to move onto Syria. Syria regime was backed by the Russians. In order to peacefully solve it, Putin came in with the idea of disarming Syria of their chemical weapons, so even though Syria did it, they can no longer do it, so the cause of war where such weapons were being used on the people were removed. Once they accepted the deal, it was the poisoned apple, Western Governments lost any mandate to support the rebels, thus they have no choice than to pull out as they dropped the ball on the situation.
Thus, Russia won. Wars aren't simply fought from the goodness of peoples hearts.
SO why is Russia so enamored of Bashar anyway? I know they think he represents stability without Islamism, but how important can Syria be to them? Is it all about putting a thumb in the eye of the West? How does support for Assad, aside from giving Russia a few days on the World's center stage, of value?
SO why is Russia so enamored of Bashar anyway? I know they think he represents stability without Islamism, but how important can Syria be to them? Is it all about putting a thumb in the eye of the West? How does support for Assad, aside from giving Russia a few days on the World's center stage, of value?
I am honestly not sure.
Influence in the Middle East?
Just to snub the West?
To be seen as a major power on the world stage?
Allies where they can find them?
Spheres of Influence?
Place to dump old Cold-War era weapons?
I do know the Russian 'coup' of the situation was very advantageous and rewarding for them. Not sure of the actual intentions in play.
SO why is Russia so enamored of Bashar anyway? I know they think he represents stability without Islamism, but how important can Syria be to them? Is it all about putting a thumb in the eye of the West? How does support for Assad, aside from giving Russia a few days on the World's center stage, of value?
I'd venture a guess that Putin is having a difficult time finding allies. Any allies. If you look at Russia's friends like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, a certain pattern begins to emerge. Like democracies, autocracies try to stick together bound by common interests. Bashar's regime is a typical autocracy, not totalitarian in any way, but definitely very dictatorial. Thus, it is in Putin's interest to help the Syrian regime simply because of its similarity to Putin's regime.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2013, 05:09
I'd venture a guess that Putin is having a difficult time finding allies. Any allies. If you look at Russia's friends like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, a certain pattern begins to emerge. Like democracies, autocracies try to stick together bound by common interests. Bashar's regime is a typical autocracy, not totalitarian in any way, but definitely very dictatorial. Thus, it is in Putin's interest to help the Syrian regime simply because of its similarity to Putin's regime.
Haven't heard a better explanation, so I will go with this one.
Noncommunist
12-14-2013, 07:13
Haven't heard a better explanation, so I will go with this one.
I think there's also a Russian naval base there, the only one outside the borders of the former Soviet Union. And renegotiating with a new leadership might not be the most fun time.
“I'd venture a guess that Putin is having a difficult time finding allies. Any allies. If you look at Russia's friends like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, a certain pattern begins to emerge. Like democracies, autocracies try to stick together bound by common interests. Bashar's regime is a typical autocracy, not totalitarian in any way, but definitely very dictatorial. Thus, it is in Putin's interest to help the Syrian regime simply because of its similarity to Putin's regime.”
It is tempting. However, the US best ally in the region being Saudi Arabia, and even if I have reserves on US policy, theses 2 countries have not the same political regime. And to put Venezuela and North Korea as equivalent is a little far fetch.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-14-2013, 14:24
“I'd venture a guess that Putin is having a difficult time finding allies. Any allies. If you look at Russia's friends like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Belarus, North Korea, a certain pattern begins to emerge. Like democracies, autocracies try to stick together bound by common interests. Bashar's regime is a typical autocracy, not totalitarian in any way, but definitely very dictatorial. Thus, it is in Putin's interest to help the Syrian regime simply because of its similarity to Putin's regime.”
It is tempting. However, the US best ally in the region being Saudi Arabia, and even if I have reserves on US policy, theses 2 countries have not the same political regime. And to put Venezuela and North Korea as equivalent is a little far fetch.
Though in partial favor of his p-o-v, I do recall the NK, Israeli, South Af "Pariahs league" friendliness of several decades past.
It's also interesting to note that the Saudis are starting to shift their policy towards the U.S.
Ah well, time will tell.
Montmorency
12-15-2013, 03:32
I guess now that the US is making up with Iran, there's to be a balance of power in the region...
Saudi-Arabia is simply getting isolated diplomatically. They have about 15 years before they have runned out of oil, all they could think of was building palaces and buying expensive cars. 15 Years isn't enough to stop it from becomming a third-world country when the oil is gone, and they have made many enemies. They are in a tough spot.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-15-2013, 18:50
Saudi-Arabia is simply getting isolated diplomatically. They have about 15 years before they have runned out of oil, all they could think of was building palaces and buying expensive cars. 15 Years isn't enough to stop it from becomming a third-world country when the oil is gone, and they have made many enemies. They are in a tough spot.
Possibly accurate - the smaller States like Bahrain and Qatar are in better shape, probably because they have denser populations, so the Sheikh has to think more about the welfare of the peasants.
Bahrain, in particular, is much more like the Great Britain of Centuries past, where there was a hard distinction between the rulers and the ruled - though we did ostensibly share a religion here.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-15-2013, 20:15
Saudi-Arabia is simply getting isolated diplomatically. They have about 15 years before they have runned out of oil, all they could think of was building palaces and buying expensive cars. 15 Years isn't enough to stop it from becomming a third-world country when the oil is gone, and they have made many enemies. They are in a tough spot.
OPEC calculates them as having 85+ years of proven reserves at current production rates. EDIT: Newer extraction methods might mean even larger reserves (admittedly more expensive to reach) in the formations under the current pools of black gold.
I would also assert that Saudi Arabia's greatest concerns have far less to do with their neighbors than within their own population. Currently, the entire country is closely akin to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the extended Saud family. The Sauds must have more concern for their own population than for their neighbors. Tunisia and Egypt are the models for the future that must worry them, not Kuwait or Iraq seeking revenge.
Montmorency
12-16-2013, 03:15
Mind Iran, though...
Seamus Fermanagh
12-16-2013, 16:05
Mind Iran, though...
Didn't say that they had NO concerns with their neighbors....only that the internal issues were bound to be more pressing.
OPEC calculates them as having 85+ years of proven reserves at current production rates. EDIT: Newer extraction methods might mean even larger reserves (admittedly more expensive to reach) in the formations under the current pools of black gold.
I would also assert that Saudi Arabia's greatest concerns have far less to do with their neighbors than within their own population. Currently, the entire country is closely akin to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the extended Saud family. The Sauds must have more concern for their own population than for their neighbors. Tunisia and Egypt are the models for the future that must worry them, not Kuwait or Iraq seeking revenge.
Correction, oil dependence. Saudi-Arabia got itself a mighry njet from Russia in an oil deal, very telling, noboby needs them anymore.
What they get in the process of becomming insifnificant is nothing less than they deserve. They could have done things with that money, but they build palaces. I am sure they look cool. Now back to the camel you never really left.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-16-2013, 19:58
Correction, oil dependence. Saudi-Arabia got itself a mighry njet from Russia in an oil deal, very telling, noboby needs them anymore.
What they get in the process of becomming insifnificant is nothing less than they deserve. They could have done things with that money, but they build palaces. I am sure they look cool. Now back to the camel you never really left.
But they HAVE done quite a lot with that money. Saudi infrastructure (roads, bridges, irrigation) have been massively increased. They grow enough food to be an exporter thereof -- not common in the M.E. They are the largest steel producer in the Middle East and one of the largest polymer producers period (though the last is oil related of course). Saudi interests own significant slices of the worlds ports. In short, whatever you think of their culture or internal politics, they have done more than almost anyone in the region to use oil revenues to improve their overall economic picture. The Qutbists out there deride Saudi Arabia for doing many of these things and exposing their culture to the evils of the West in the process.
Kadagar_AV
12-16-2013, 20:04
OPEC calculates them as having 85+ years of proven reserves at current production rates. EDIT: Newer extraction methods might mean even larger reserves (admittedly more expensive to reach) in the formations under the current pools of black gold.
I would also assert that Saudi Arabia's greatest concerns have far less to do with their neighbors than within their own population. Currently, the entire country is closely akin to a wholly-owned subsidiary of the extended Saud family. The Sauds must have more concern for their own population than for their neighbors. Tunisia and Egypt are the models for the future that must worry them, not Kuwait or Iraq seeking revenge.
But they HAVE done quite a lot with that money. Saudi infrastructure (roads, bridges, irrigation) have been massively increased. They grow enough food to be an exporter thereof -- not common in the M.E. They are the largest steel producer in the Middle East and one of the largest polymer producers period (though the last is oil related of course). Saudi interests own significant slices of the worlds ports. In short, whatever you think of their culture or internal politics, they have done more than almost anyone in the region to use oil revenues to improve their overall economic picture. The Qutbists out there deride Saudi Arabia for doing many of these things and exposing their culture to the evils of the West in the process.
You mean Frags had an uninformed opinion!? ~:rolleyes:
Haven't heard a better explanation, so I will go with this one.
Seems to me that Russia senses our muddled Middle East policy and the unease of our allies in the region. They're trying to show the region that Russia is a steadier hand and that they can get results- both in contrast to the US.
The diplomatic spanking the US got over the Syrian issue was just to accent the point.
Edit:
Here's an article from The Nation of all places...
A Field Guide to Losing Friends, Influencing No One and Alienating the Middle East:
(http://www.thenation.com/article/177002/field-guide-losing-friends-influencing-no-one-and-alienating-middle-east)How a series of foreign policy flubs, stumbles and mini-disasters have underscored the Obama administration’s increasing irrelevance in the region.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-17-2013, 02:58
Seems to me that Russia senses our muddled Middle East policy and the unease of our allies in the region. They're trying to show the region that Russia is a steadier hand and that they can get results- both in contrast to the US.
The diplomatic spanking the US got over the Syrian issue was just to accent the point.
Edit:
Here's an article from The Nation of all places...
A Field Guide to Losing Friends, Influencing No One and Alienating the Middle East:
(http://www.thenation.com/article/177002/field-guide-losing-friends-influencing-no-one-and-alienating-middle-east)How a series of foreign policy flubs, stumbles and mini-disasters have underscored the Obama administration’s increasing irrelevance in the region.
Interesting article, Xman, thanks.
Obama started off his first term with accolades for his new tone in the Middle East. The articles summarizes his efforts as more tone deaf than anything else. Lots of inaction and a policy that does not clearly take much of a stand about anything.
The Nation's readers, by their responses, didn't get the point of the article at all. Those responders seem to think that Obama was wrong by not doing an immediate sauve qui peut and leaving the entire region alone. That was NOT the author's point, but those readers have blinders as bad as hawkish neo-cons.
Montmorency
12-17-2013, 03:23
The whole Obama-admin policy seems to be to reduce political (but especially military) commitment to the region while ensuring stability with a balance of power and a watchful eye.
It's not a bad idea, in theory. As for Syria, well, that's what happens when you try to please both the hawk-hawks and the human-rights-hawks, while actually maintaining the policy of non-commitment.
On one hand, who gives a crap what the Middle East thinks? On the other hand, it makes the Turks more self-reliant and the Caucasians reluctantly look elsewhere for trade and security. Meanwhile, a few bridges with Saudi Arabia are burned and Israel continues to whine pointlessly.
Ultimately, the flaws can be summed up as trying to satisfy everyone while maintaining the plan that specifically demands the side-lining of the most vocal callers for intervention and presence, and more insidiously that it doesn't account for the possibility that in a generation or two we might need to swap focus from the Pacific again.
But as I said, the concept is good in theory - it's just that the execution didn't work out too well for Obama. You can see now that Russia plans to antagonize us everywhere: not only has East Asia been their fastest-growing customer in the past decade, but ATM they're even pushing for energy-trade deals with Vietnam!
You mean Frags had an uninformed opinion!? ~:rolleyes:
I said it before and I am going to say it again, stop begging, I am NOT going to sleep with you. Stop it.
How is Iraq at the centre of modern militant Islam?
How is Iraq at the centre of modern militant Islam?
How is it not, it's the most diverse country when it comes to various streams, in most other countries it's pretty much settled what stream is the most relevant, something that isn't settled in Iraq at the moment. It's the main theater of proxy warfare at the moment, with Iran and Saudi-Arabie being the hands under the skirts. Iran and Saudi-Arabia are enemies and Iraq is their playground.
I've spent a long time trying to imagine why Bush's administration would have invaded Iraq, now that we know that WMD evidence was more or less knowingly fabricated. Either it was crafty Realpolitick designed to destabilize an entire region (to prevent them from becoming a strong enough economic bloc to challenge the Eurozone or the US? to make it easier for global corporations operating in the region to enforce their will on weakened local governments? some other reason?)
I thought the common consensus was because of Operation Industry and Liberation (also known as OIL) ?
Who exactly got the oil? How did the invasion make that easier?
I think aimless invasion without thought for the consequences is more likely.
I think it was more "We have this idea" but they had no idea of the consequences.
Containment of Iran, Oil favouritism and denationalisation, Large scale public-works and profiteering from the construction companies.
Pretty much the people who supported the GOP was having a slice of the pie at the expense of the American people and their allies. The thing is, it didn't really work. Iran has grown more influential because of the invasions, the oil wasn't all that profitable with domestic sources proving to be more viable and the construction was half-bothered rush jobs.
More annoyingly, is how to tactfully retreat from the areas. Hence the 'Deadlines' and such. The national damage of just suddenly withdrawing and having the country completely overrun would have left interventionist policy in complete ruins for decades to come. Hence why the politics have been so slow, idea being "We were there for over a decade, if it messes up afterwards, it is their own fault".
It is a sham, they know it is a sham and they are trying to 'save-face' the nation and interventionist policy.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2014, 06:14
I think it was more "We have this idea" but they had no idea of the consequences.
Containment of Iran, Oil favouritism and denationalisation, Large scale public-works and profiteering from the construction companies.
Pretty much the people who supported the GOP was having a slice of the pie at the expense of the American people and their allies. The thing is, it didn't really work. Iran has grown more influential because of the invasions, the oil wasn't all that profitable with domestic sources proving to be more viable and the construction was half-bothered rush jobs.
More annoyingly, is how to tactfully retreat from the areas. Hence the 'Deadlines' and such. The national damage of just suddenly withdrawing and having the country completely overrun would have left interventionist policy in complete ruins for decades to come. Hence why the politics have been so slow, idea being "We were there for over a decade, if it messes up afterwards, it is their own fault".
It is a sham, they know it is a sham and they are trying to 'save-face' the nation and interventionist policy.
I don't think anyone thought USA were in there for the good of the people.
OK, maybe some USAnians did, but I think it was a logical stretch even for them.
The fun part NOW is: Everyone knew it was a doomed adventure. Sure seem like the invaded countries are about as bad off now as before. With the "WMD" and "catch Usama" arguments being very much obviously proven to be false even to the most retarded...
I honestly wonder how USA can withdraw with their proclaimed captain America mantle intact. And let's remember, you only have that stupid mantle because YOU put it on. I don't think anyone but USAnians expected you to be in the whole thing for "good" reasons. The rest of the world, like me, just laugh at you and expect you to live up to it...
The ONLY option would be to spend Donald Duck amounts of money to build the countries up, invest in the children and youth, yadda yadda yadda..
But let's face it, USA isn't even capable of handling their own educational standards.
Imagine doing the same in a country where much of the population absolutely DESPISE you, generally because you have blown up a family member of some sorts.
:2thumbsup:
Oh dear, can't we just build a fence around Syria and stop caring about who kills who. I don't think I can post the link here because of graphic images but you can find them yourself, 'CNN gruesome pictures Syria'. Gruesome allright.
HoreTore
01-23-2014, 09:24
Because most of the hardcore young militants in the region grew up fighting against us. Bin Laden's contemporaries are old news.
*To elaborate, when we invaded Iraq in '03 we created a terrorist haven where there was none. The effects and cast-off from that invasion are in no small part responsible for the militant turn the Arab spring took. In short, because we invaded Iraq, the region has been cast into instability and violence--where before 2003 there may have been the potential for the whole region to pull itself into the first world, that potential is almost certainly gone for most of the middle-east now.
I've spent a long time trying to imagine why Bush's administration would have invaded Iraq, now that we know that WMD evidence was more or less knowingly fabricated. Either it was crafty Realpolitick designed to destabilize an entire region (to prevent them from becoming a strong enough economic bloc to challenge the Eurozone or the US? to make it easier for global corporations operating in the region to enforce their will on weakened local governments? some other reason?) or the invasion was done on a whim with no serious thought given to its implications at all.
I'm not sure which possibility I prefer.
I see no reason to doubt Bush' sincerity when he stated that he wanted to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. I think he really did believe that a US-led removal of Saddam would usher in a new era of freedom, democracy and friendliness towards the US. I see no reason to attach sinister motives to any of the persons in the administration. Simple incompetence is more than enough to explain it. They had a completely utopian view of of the real world works. This also explains Rumsfeld's idea of "doing it on the cheap". He didn't put in the required amount of troops simply because he believed things would go much easier. A swift attack, remove Saddam and the population would transform into a democracy grateful for US assistance.
As for the current situation in Syria: Geneve II will fail. It won't do squat because the main players on both sides(some of the most active resistance groups on the rebel side and Iran on Assad's side) are missing. It's still possible Geneve II will lay the foundation for an eventual Geneve X to bring all the players in, however.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-20-2014, 19:27
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10777059/Syria-Bashar-al-Assad-launching-chemical-weapons-attacks-with-chlorine.html
Oh look, more gassing of Rebel areas.
Look at us, so pious, not bombing Assad's artillery, it was SUCH a bad idea going into Libya, I'm glad we didn't repeat it!
Oh... wait...
Looks like not intervening was worse - perhaps this latest attack was encouraged by our toothlessness over Ukraine.
gaelic cowboy
04-20-2014, 20:51
Cousin told me the Irish soldiers in Syria were given instructions to surrendar weapons if stopped by rebels.
Naturally they told the higher up in Dublin and the UN to :daisy: off they would never surrendar there weapons.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-20-2014, 21:57
Cousin told me the Irish soldiers in Syria were given instructions to surrendar weapons if stopped by rebels.
Naturally they told the higher up in Dublin and the UN to :daisy: off they would never surrendar there weapons.
There are Irish soldiers in Syria?
Is this one of those "stand around looking at the sky while the locals paint the town red" missions?
Didn't know it either, wtf for, nobody knows who's who
Pannonian
04-21-2014, 08:35
There are Irish soldiers in Syria?
Is this one of those "stand around looking at the sky while the locals paint the town red" missions?
Probably similar to the mission we would have if we were to go in. Nothing in there for us, no sense in getting involved with the messy politics where everyone ends up hating us.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-21-2014, 13:20
Probably similar to the mission we would have if we were to go in. Nothing in there for us, no sense in getting involved with the messy politics where everyone ends up hating us.
Libya is still better off for us winding it up quickly - and yes, I realise their Prime Minister just resigned.
However, their economy actually works-ish.
gaelic cowboy
04-21-2014, 14:37
There are Irish soldiers in Syria?
Is this one of those "stand around looking at the sky while the locals paint the town red" missions?
In the Golan region apparently to prevent spillover of the war into Israel.
Actually we have had troops in the region since the 70s.
The government was going to end the deployment but the UN asked them to hold off as other countries pulled out.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-21-2014, 18:40
In the Golan region apparently to prevent spillover of the war into Israel.
Actually we have had troops in the region since the 70s.
The government was going to end the deployment but the UN asked them to hold off as countries other pulled.
Oh, a classic blue beanie mission
gaelic cowboy
04-21-2014, 19:08
Oh, a classic blue beanie mission
yep
They got leave for Patricks Day in Damascus which was "Drier than an Ethopians boot"
No beer apparently for the men by order of top brass.
Pannonian
04-21-2014, 19:18
yep
They got leave for Patricks Day in Damascus which was "Drier than an Ethopians boot"
No beer apparently for the men by order of top brass.
St. Patrick's Day with no drinks? Isn't alcohol the whole reason why Americans pretend to be Irish on that day?
gaelic cowboy
04-21-2014, 20:11
St. Patrick's Day with no drinks? Isn't alcohol the whole reason why Americans pretend to be Irish on that day?
yep
Generally they tended to go to Cyprus for there leave but I think it was some kind of hearts and minds gig.
Women in full Burka at the parade twas a sight to behold.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-21-2014, 20:12
yep
They got leave for Patricks Day in Damascus which was "Drier than an Ethopians boot"
No beer apparently for the men by order of top brass.
Well, I rather think it's too late now to do anything.
However, I stand by my assessment a couple of years ago that had we backed the rebels with military force early on, we would have less of a hell-hole now.
gaelic cowboy
04-21-2014, 20:17
St. Patrick's Day with no drinks? Isn't alcohol the whole reason why Americans pretend to be Irish on that day?
yep
Generally they tended to go to Cyprus for there leave but I think it was some kind of hearts and minds gig.
Women in full Burka at the parade twas a sight to behold.
Well, I rather think it's too late now to do anything.
However, I stand by my assessment a couple of years ago that had we backed the rebels with military force early on, we would have less of a hell-hole now.
I suppose we have to channel Macmillan and say "Events my dear boy events"
Seamus Fermanagh
04-22-2014, 01:28
St. Patrick's Day with no drinks? Isn't alcohol the whole reason why Americans pretend to be Irish on that day?
You should come over for St. Pat's at McSorleys, or perhaps the Four Provinces down near D.C. You would have a grand time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI
But supporting Assad is supporting Hitler because Putin supports Assad and Putin is Hitler.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI
Interesting stuff.
[put apoligies here for making fun of me when I was saying that the arab spring would become an islamic winter] <-- there
Pannonian
09-05-2014, 14:17
Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?
Why does it go religious fundie?
Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".
If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.
Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.
We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.
The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...
It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.
Yeah, right.
I see no reason to doubt Bush' sincerity when he stated that he wanted to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. I think he really did believe that a US-led removal of Saddam would usher in a new era of freedom, democracy and friendliness towards the US. I see no reason to attach sinister motives to any of the persons in the administration. Simple incompetence is more than enough to explain it. They had a completely utopian view of of the real world works. This also explains Rumsfeld's idea of "doing it on the cheap". He didn't put in the required amount of troops simply because he believed things would go much easier. A swift attack, remove Saddam and the population would transform into a democracy grateful for US assistance.
Does that also explain why they admitted to lying about the reasons for the war?
I have absolutely no problem with ambiguity in the sense that there was possibly a mix of what you say and actually more sinister reasons.
Sometimes these more sinister reasons also lead to something "good" of course, like more personal wealth, fame or what have you.
That someone who spent millions on ruthless political campaigning to get into a position of power is only out there for flowers and world peace given the history of the US sounds almost naive...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-10-2014, 00:16
Yeah, right.
Yeah.
If the West made it a principle to intervene, even with just punitive strikes, then the Arabs would not be asking "why Libya and not Syria".
After Lybia the Syrians certainly expected help.
Why would they want to emulate us when we're such arbitrary arseholes.
Montmorency
09-10-2014, 00:57
Surely the more arbitrary path is to go to war simply because war is a thing that we've done in the past.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.