Printable View
Article
Seems that both the government and the rebels are accusing each other of carrying out the attack near Aleppo. I'm inclined to believe it was the government, because I don't see how the rebels could get their hands the gas. Plus Assad has fired scuds at civilian areas before. This just goes to show that he would sooner let Syria burn before handing over power.
Well shit. There's no staying out of this one now. Iraq 2.0 here we come.
Afghanistan 3.0
Vietnam 95?
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Could be a chlorine acid bomb - that would burn out the lungs of those nearby and cause generalised breathing problems for anyone who breathed it in by scaring their lungs.
That would be within the abilities of the rebels - in any case the failure of the West to intervene has resulted in the Rebels becoming as bad as Assad, a point I made two years ago. We should have crushed Assad 18 months ago.
So - yay us - all moral in not escalating the conflict.
They could have tried to cook Meth to fund the effort and messed up, creating mustard gas. Being honest, there are lots of 'low tech' technologies which are effective.
Horrible.
I'm sure we'll think of some way to excuse ourselves from our promise. Given that the origin is disputed, we could claim that we don't have enough information to actually go in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I'm not sure I want us to stay out.
Has any of this stuff about a chemical attack been substantiated? Last I heard, it was a lot of "he anthraxed/she anthraxed."
Probably a case of premature inoculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Hmm could be that it was neither Assad or the FSA but Hizbullah instead, strategically for them it makes sense.
Why? Do you feel it is the business of the West to get involved because we are the rich and moral West?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I did say I'm not sure.
On the one hand: Assad's evil and noone else is/will, on the other hand: Iraq 2.0
Those are very strange usages of 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity'.
Let me take a stab at this.
From an outside point-of-view the facts that matter are cherry-picked and give a neat clean solution.
On the ground, history, bad-blood, rumor, innuendo and feelings change the facts that matter; the perception of the situation might be unrecognizable to an outside observer.
Another way of putting it would be that we're used to living by rules, and if the west has a uniform religion, it is a belief in the rule of law. We don't believe in personalising justice, which usually results in different standards understood by everyone, and bad blood where one different understanding clashes with another. We have a depersonalised justice system that's reasonably uniform for everyone, and accepted by everyone. So everyone gets on with life within these limits, and there is little danger of things going beyond these limits.
About time we stayed out of other countries. It only leads to our lads dying pointlessly.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
...and lasses now as well, let's not be sexist.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
We should totally intervene because I heard he has so much mustard gas that when we take it over we can use it to pay for the war itself. I love mustard, especially on hot dogs and biscuits, sign me up for 5 bottles.
Also we should do it for Israel, in gratitude for all the things they have done for us, like bagels and Natalie Portman.
The frenzied interventionism that characterized the Western foreign policy of the last decade is an almost natural extension of the "right of interference" concept developed by Kouchner in the 80s-90s. I must say that I was seduced by the idea. I participated in a symposium at the University of Law of Aix en Provence to discuss it.
This is only later, confronted with the problem(s) in Yugoslavia that I began to doubt. I saw live how the 'good' were chosen, and the 'baddies' referred to the mob. The reality is that the “right” of intervention is neither more nor less than the direct heir of the gunboat policy.
To mention only the French examples, we invaded and colonized Congo to free the slaves (noble cause if it was), the Viet Nam to protect the Catholic minorities oppressed by the Emperor of Annam, and finally a large part of Africa to free the peoples of their tyrants and replace it with an administration that will sell the workforce to mining and forestry companies (In short). I will add the expedition to Mexico by Napoleon III for non-repayment of debt (Cyprus should beware) and regime change. The only result will be the battle of Camerón, who will become one of the Founder Myth of the Foreign Legion. So, we can say that, as early as the 19th century, we had the instruments, models, to justify our intervention:
- Human Rights,
- Minorities Right,
- Democratization and Regime Change,
- Higher interests of the nation.
The example of Syria and Assad follows the pattern already in use. No one questions why some people choose to support a dictator or a tyrant. Because the answer would be that others (the goods) want to kill them, as they did in the past. The Alawis (not considered as Muslims) are allied with those who protected them from their killers, as the Assyro-Chaldeans teamed up to Saddam. Less dramatic but just as real, the Jewish and Protestant France communities are fundamentally Republican because they were more than abused by the monarchy.
How we refer to the good, ignoring the recent past, leads to a race to the media popularity by lynching, and win the one with the best communication. The counterpart of this process is the 'demonization' of the 'baddies '. This will be well reinforced by Judeo-Christian morality, in which the victim is always perceived as innocent, and therefore the villain an abject executioner without real legitimate claims... And to be sure of our good right, in an exercise in self-justification, we create a court such as The Hague, version modernized of the 'white man's burden ".
I've heard and read comments (this is not my opinion) about this civil war in Syria that say something like this: "Thousands die = no freedom .. we sing few songs = freedom"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
But I agree with you. If anyone interferes things might(and probably will) turn worse.
the other way of thinking isQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
"the altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood," Daniel O'Connell (6 August 1775 – 15 May 1847)
Except where it concerns rape.Quote:
in which the victim is always perceived as innocent,
Great man though he was, Dan didn't succeed. DeV and Collins did.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
The tree must be refreshed with blood at times, but -- in this we agree -- it cannot be the only nutriment.
Wretched though they were.
It took a long time for Ireland to recover, and it's debatable that independence was best for Her in the long run.
The Big problem with Syria, though, is that most of the decent people are dead or embittered now. By supporting the Rebels in Libya we gave moderates some credibility (because they mobalised international firepower) and we prevented the entire populace from being drawn into the fighting, and thence brutalised. We should have done the same in Syria, but we didn't and now it's just not worth it.
Who here actually thinks that this situation will be anything other than a violent civil war that will result in the victory of the incumbent dictator or the victory of a new dictator?
“If anyone is going to intervene in Syria, I say we make France do it.” No no no no… If you want to do it, ask your usual best friend and the special relationship… In both case I am done as it would be either my family or pay with my taxes…
Yeah, all the cool nations are doing it. Don't you want to be cool too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
“You already did it to one of your ex colonies”: Rhaa, again a common misconception and deception propagated by the Anglo-Saxon Media …
France bombed Serbia (Kosovo), Bosnia (Serbs), followed in Afghanistan, Libya, and had numerous interventions in Arica, most of them without any backing or UN resolutions… And what did we get for it: Surrendering Cheese Eaters Monkeys… And all the very funny jokes, and freedom frites, wine poured in the gutters etc… So as the US and the special relationship country showed no gratitude to whatever France does to follow orders, ya basta, and that is it.
I say bring the boys home, and let the goods to do what mistakes they want without the Foreign Legion that could be better employed in restoring electricity (in France, when EDF was still the property of the ones who paid for it, the French Taxes Payers) and building roads and schools in Africa. If someone decides to help the Islamists to kill the non-Muslim in Syria (as they were doing before the Assad Dynasty), well, I say without France. In a Civil War, the winners are always the best equipped, and not always the good. Not that I support the Assad Dynasty…
Unfortunately, François III the Mou will probably follow as he has no idea what to do to resolved the climbing social crisis in France and will try to divert attention. The French are not know to go down quietly, and a record number of unemployed and poor in a Country that was never so rich (European Champion for Millionaires in USD) is a kind of situation, err, sensitive, in my country of birth.