Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No its not. That remark was about American Foreign Policy, not domestic politics.
Stop being facetious.
Yeah, I had a thread about the international ramifications of the FBI putting out a warrant for Russian agents once... then if was closed because 'US Politics'.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.
As a hypothetical, let's say Russia never got involved, or their assistance was ineffective. This led to the rebels pushing towards victory, and now they're threatening Damascus. Would you support US led airstrikes to cripple rebel forces and help Assad recover control of the country?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: No its not. That remark was about American Foreign Policy, not domestic politics. Stop being facetious.
Yeah, I had a thread about the international ramifications of the FBI putting out a warrant for Russian agents once... then if was closed because 'US Politics'.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats not the same thing as handing the country over to Al Qaeda, which, by ensuring a Rebel victory, is exactly what we will be doing.
As a hypothetical, let's say Russia never got involved, or their assistance was ineffective. This led to the rebels pushing towards victory, and now they're threatening Damascus. Would you support US led airstrikes to cripple rebel forces and help Assad recover control of the country?
No. Everything we (the West) touch turns to gak.We shouldn't intervene period.
Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.
The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.
Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.
The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.
So we should stay out, but its okay if Russia piles in? Because Russia's foreign interventions don't have a habit of turning to crap?
Yeah... Leave that place be.. Middle East is the death of anyone who wants to control it. You cannot.
Why do you think that it IS a quagmire? Because US and UK and French and Russia foreign policy is that it remains one. I mean, seriously, every time a stable government forms other than Israel, one of the above overthrows it and tries to install anoterh short lived dictator.
Now, why is Syria important to the US in particular?
Because eventually Israel is going to do something so horrific that not even the hardest of die hard senators could back them publicly, and so the US would have to go looking for a new ally in the region, and the first place they'll go is the Kurds.
Contain the situation, guard the borders, stem the flow of foreign fighters, but leave it to Syria's direct neighbours and Russia to intervene directly in the conflict. Let them police their own neighbourhood.
The Middle East is a quagmire that we should leave the hell alone.
So we should stay out, but its okay if Russia piles in? Because Russia's foreign interventions don't have a habit of turning to crap?
Yes. I'd much prefer that Russian soldiers die than British soldiers.
Syria is not our responsibility. Why should we police it? Why do we have to keep sticking our noses in places they don't belong?
Because this isn't the 19th century, and things that happen in the Middle East, or other parts of the world, have repercussions throughout the rest of the world. When you have a group that runs roughshod through one of the largest oil producing regions in the world, murdering children for not understanding religion, will have an effect on things, whether you like it or not.
Because eventually Israel is going to do something so horrific that not even the hardest of die hard senators could back them publicly, and so the US would have to go looking for a new ally in the region, and the first place they'll go is the Kurds.
A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??
B) as for the Kurds... aren't we already supporting them in various ways?
BaronIveagh wrote: Why do you think that it IS a quagmire? Because US and UK and French and Russia foreign policy is that it remains one. I mean, seriously, every time a stable government forms other than Israel, one of the above overthrows it and tries to install anoterh short lived dictator.
That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West. Because he made some good noises about reform and development, and those are things that the US, UK, France and the West in general want for countries in the region (most of the time). Problem is, Assad didn't really do much of any of that, and then when the Arab Spring led to instability, Assad responded with abductions, torture and murders.
Really, it was when Assad proved himself completely unacceptable as a ruler that you saw any action by the US and other Western powers. And even then that action was limited to support to native forces that had already taken up arms against Assad.
Syria is not our responsibility. Why should we police it? Why do we have to keep sticking our noses in places they don't belong?
Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.
Now, that doesn't mean there should always be an intervention. There are judgement calls to be made - you have to assess how much good you will do, and what the chance of increasing instability might be. But to simply reject the idea of intervening at all, especially in open wars that other nations are already intervening in, good golly...
A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??
The fact they've enshrined what amounts to racism into law, and embraced what the UN described as 'apartheid' before the US forced them to withdraw the report. Not just against Palestinians, either. Right now it's politically popular to scapegoat Palestinians, parties that in other countries would be called 'fascist' gaining power, and the army get's more aggressive toward civilians with every conflict with the Palestinians. Given this rather volatile combination, it's only a matter of time before someone decides that genocide is the answer.
That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West.
Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west (in general, and the UK in specific, one of their 'interests' along with preventing any strong central power in Europe [though granted this may be over with Brexit]), it has been since the end of the ottomans, and several countries have commented on their intentions re: this. It's sort of an open secret at this point.
Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison. He also released the Muslim Brotherhood as a group from Syrian jails and embraced Hezbollah. That was the point that they stopped praising him.
Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.
While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.
From an entirely self-centered cynical position, the longer a civil war goes on the bigger the refugee streams we have to handle become. We have a Realpolitik-interest in ending civil wars in the Middle East for that reason alone, even if we take a completely sociopathic stance on the people who live there.
I don't think you need to fear. That whole story sounds fake. The lack of any kind of specific details (location, time, units involved etc.) should ring immediate alarm bells, and the 'unverified transcripts' that have been published were definitely not written by a Russian or even a translation from Russian. They contain idiom that Russians, even if relatively fluent in English, would never ever use.
Besides that, it also does not make sense. There are Russian mercenaries in Syria, but it is highly unlikely they could mount attacks of that magnitude. These groups aren't very large, and so far, all we have seen from Russian mercenaries are relatively small actions, usually alongside Syrian militias. A large-scale attack with more than thousand fighters all on a single base does not really fit in with the way they operate (nor does it make much sense from a strategical or tactical point of view), and attacking an American base (does the US even have bases in Syria large enough to become a target of an attack of that magnitude? Afaik, the US has no real bases in Syria, only small outposts for their special forces. Even Russia has only two real bases, and Russia has a lot more men and material in Syria than the US) also seems an incredibly unlikely thing to do. Most of these mercenary groups have some connection to the Russian military. And the Russian military will do everything to avoid a confrontation with the US, because while they could easily kick the US out of Syria, doing so would be a big risk for little gain. Russia can't really afford a wider conflict with the US. So that makes it highly unlikely that the Russian military would send such a group to probe American defenses, as they would have nothing to gain from that (since they don't plan on directly fighting the US anyway). Even if the Russian military was going to test American defenses, they'd send in a bunch of Syrians, not Russians, because the plausible deniability is not very strong if you send in Russians. Mercenary groups that big don't spring up out of nowhere after all. Basically, the whole story doesn't add up anywhere. In my opinion, it is possible that it has some base in truth somewhere (a US base or outpost was attacked on 7 february, and 2 Russians were reported killed on the same date.) but it then got exaggerated into fantastical proportions. It doesn't help that the story constantly keeps changing either.
A) what convinces you that Israel is going to do something "so horrific"??
The fact they've enshrined what amounts to racism into law, and embraced what the UN described as 'apartheid' before the US forced them to withdraw the report.
Care to elaborate on this?
As to the UN... I hope you're not talking about the UN Human Rights Council...
Not just against Palestinians, either. Right now it's politically popular to scapegoat Palestinians, parties that in other countries would be called 'fascist' gaining power, and the army get's more aggressive toward civilians with every conflict with the Palestinians. Given this rather volatile combination, it's only a matter of time before someone decides that genocide is the answer.
I got no sympathy for Palestinians who keeps electing governance who wants to destroy Israel. Frankly, I'm surprised how reserved Israel has been these last few decades...
That's not particularly accurate. Of course there's been plenty of very cynical action in the ME, but it isn't the whole of policy in the region, and certainly not right now. Fun fact - when Assad came to power he was talked up by a lot of voices in the West.
Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west (in general, and the UK in specific, one of their 'interests' along with preventing any strong central power in Europe [though granted this may be over with Brexit]), it has been since the end of the ottomans, and several countries have commented on their intentions re: this. It's sort of an open secret at this point.
Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison. He also released the Muslim Brotherhood as a group from Syrian jails and embraced Hezbollah. That was the point that they stopped praising him.
Just goes to show how the mideast is synonymous to the Frog & Scorpion parable...
Because people live there, and it's fething despicable to sit by and passively watch as human are tortured and murdered, because you think the only people you should care about are the ones born in your own country.
While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.
BaronIveagh wrote: While I generally agree with this post, I'll point out that you're not going to win based on this. I can't explain why though without violating half the rules of this forum. But just assume arguments like 'human decency' are invalid as far as he's concerned.
Don't speak for me.
If I thought our intervention would end the conflict, bring peace to Syria and end the cycle of death, I'd support it.
But I don't think it will end the conflict. I think our intervention would only escalate the conflict, drag more nations into the War and result in even more death and destruction in the long term. None of our so called "humanitarian interventions" ever result in a happy ending. We leave a trail of destruction in our wake, broken nations, millions dead, and power vacuums that guarantee long term conflict.
Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. We have a very poor track record, and yet you want to continue??? It wasn't that long ago that we were lied to in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. What else are we being lied to about? We're even risking a direct conflict with Russia. And if that happens, then this Syrian War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan are NOTHING compared to what will come.
Its long past time we stopped waging war on emotive but ultimately ill thought out reasons like "human decency" and started being a little more pragmatic and realistic. You claim moral superiority, citing lofty ideals like "human decency". I call B.S. Your course of action will result in more dead in the long term, all to serve your ego.
If we get more directly involved, it'll be our second Iraq.
Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.
Plus, you didn't argue that we shouldn't intervene because it wouldn't work, you argued that it wasn't our responsibility in the first place. That's inconsistent with saying you'd support an intervention if you thought it'd work.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.
Right, and we've done so well since Yugoslavia.
What makes you think our intervention in Syria will have the result of Yugoslavia, and not Iraq or Libya?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Pretty sure the war in the ex-Yugoslavian nations stopped after intervention and the countries are better off than during the war.
Plus, you didn't argue that we shouldn't intervene because it wouldn't work, you argued that it wasn't our responsibility in the first place. That's inconsistent with saying you'd support an intervention if you thought it'd work.
Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Its not our responsibility. I don't think our intervention would work.
If I thought it would work, I'd support it. Or at least be more open to the idea. But I still wouldn't think its our responsibility to intervene.
I'm not arguing one way or another for an intervention in Syria, I'm simply pointing out that your "intervention is doomed to fail!" narrative doesn't hold up.
I don't see the bad results of intervention as the problem, it's a complex issue where even the best intentions can make things worse. It's the complete lack of learning from past experience that's the problem.
As to the UN... I hope you're not talking about the UN Human Rights Council...
Aside from getting wildly OT, I'll give you a bit.
I was, among other UN reports, referring to the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia report, who's uncensored report flatly accused Israel of Apartheid as defined by the UN. This goes hand in hand with the South African Human Sciences Research Council findings, and the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law makes very clear that marriages between Israelis and Palestinians will be punished were possible. Further, the proposed 'Jewish State' bill which is working it's way through the Knesset might as well be named 'Jim Crow, Middle Eastern Edition'.
Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz, Editorial, Nov 28, 2017 wrote:
“In Israel there aren’t really political parties. A single governing bloc is made up of interchangeable parts, including everyone who seeks legitimacy by donning right-wing costumes. They’re ready to expel foreigners, support anti-democratic legislation, observe the Sabbath and keep it holy, stick a note in the Western Wall, and let the settlements do as they please. There’s no coalition or opposition; there’s a ruling party and there are subversives, leftists who support terror, traitors to their nation and homeland. There are no minority parties, there’s a fifth column. There’s a free press, but it is persecuted and crushed.”
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Don't speak for me.
And then turns around and prooves me exactly right...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its long past time we stopped waging war on emotive but ultimately ill thought out reasons like "human decency" and started being a little more pragmatic and realistic. You claim moral superiority, citing lofty ideals like "human decency". I call B.S. Your course of action will result in more dead in the long term, all to serve your ego.
and throws a barb in implying that I actually want all this as it would 'serve (my) ego'. Fact is that in this case, intervention actually can't make things worse. When you're gassing civilians in the streets, there's actually not of room left for things to get worse.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Its not our responsibility.
I don't think our intervention would work.
And there's the lie. It is your responsibility (in fact, it's literally the result of something you, UK and France and the US' actions). I mean, seriously, 'we shouldn't get involved because history, but it's not our fault because history is irrelevant'. That;s some staggering hypocrisy there. Whether it would work or not, you admit is your opinion, which i respect, but if you don't think this is your fault, I recommend reading up on the Sykes-Picot Agreement and then come back, and with a straight face, tell me the modern middle east in it's entirety is not exactly the fault of England, France, the US, and Russia.
And then turns around and prooves me exactly right...
Hardly. You want to paint me as some sort of heartless monster, and yourself as the compassionate white knight who wants to wage war to right the world's wrongs. Tony Blair had a similar attitude to Iraq. Look where that got us.
I call BS. I think the course of action you're advocating will have far reaching and unintended consequences...just like Iraq and Libya. You're in a hurry to do something. Anything. Just as long as we do something. No matter how poorly thought out and short term.
and throws a barb in implying that I actually want all this as it would 'serve (my) ego'. Fact is that in this case, intervention actually can't make things worse. When you're gassing civilians in the streets, there's actually not of room left for things to get worse.
He wants the West to wage war on Syria and enact regime change.
My argument is that its a very bone headed, dangerous idea, because chances are that we'll just feth it up like all our previous attempts at regime change.
BaronIveagh wrote: Fun fact - you might want to examine Western Mid east policy from about world war one on, since that actually is the policy of the west
No. History is important, but it's beyond stupid to think post WWI foreign policy has remained unchanged until today. I don't agree with a lot of existing ME policy today, but it is miles from the colonial attitude of the early 20th century.
Assad was talked up because he was seen as a modernizer because he brought, get this, the internet to Syria, and closed it's worst prison.
There's more to it, but I agree that the praise for Assad came from a place of very, very low standards. But that is my point, far from being keen to intervene in Syria, the West was happy to talk the guy up, give him legitimacy and stability. That only changed as Assad starting doing some pretty horrific stuff.
If I thought our intervention would end the conflict, bring peace to Syria and end the cycle of death, I'd support it.
But I don't think it will end the conflict. I think our intervention would only escalate the conflict, drag more nations into the War and result in even more death and destruction in the long term. None of our so called "humanitarian interventions" ever result in a happy ending.
But that's what I don't get. You reject intervention from the West because of Iraq etc, but then say you don't care if Russia is there. But Russia's got a history of Afghanistan, Chechnya etc that are at least as awful, and probably worse.
So, if we believe that there's nothing the outside world can do militarily, then surely the best stance would be to keep out, and work to make sure other countries also keep out?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I don't see the bad results of intervention as the problem, it's a complex issue where even the best intentions can make things worse. It's the complete lack of learning from past experience that's the problem.
I think a lot of the problem is, to paraphrase, that functional countries are all alike; every disfunctional country is unhappy in its own way.
Lessons should be learned, but its a mistake to think the lessons of Somalia would help in Afghanistan, whose lessons would help in Iraq. The problems and situations in each country are unique. Stuff that ended up working in one country were often tried elsewhere, to dismal failure. The Taliban was overthrown by a fairly small number of US special forces with a lot of airpower, with the bulk of fighting troops coming from the various tribes opposed to the Taliban. A similar theory was formed early in the planning for Iraq, but it was stupid because there wasn't a natural alliance willing to ignore their difference because they hated Saddam. And then on the flipside, Iraq was stabilised through the surge, putting in more troops but more importantly using a pile of cash to buy off a lot of key warlords. When the same was tried in Afghanistan it went nowhere because the culture and economic dynamics were nowhere near the same.
sebster wrote: But that's what I don't get. You reject intervention from the West because of Iraq etc, but then say you don't care if Russia is there. But Russia's got a history of Afghanistan, Chechnya etc that are at least as awful, and probably worse.
I didn't say I don't care that Russia is intervening, I said that I'd prefer Russian soldiers die than my own country's soldiers. I don't think Russia should be there either really, but if someone has to intervene, I'd prefer it not be my country.
This isn't coming from a place of sociopathic disdain for human suffering, as Baronveagh falsely suggests. Rather, its a complete lack of faith in the ability of my country's Government(s) (Tories and Labour) to not feth it up and made matters worse, based on their past track record.
I mean, seriously. Do you trust the UK Tory Government to run a successful intervention? Or the US Trump Administration? Are they the people you wish to entrust with dealing with a conflict that could become our next Iraq?
So, if we believe that there's nothing the outside world can do militarily, then surely the best stance would be to keep out, and work to make sure other countries also keep out?
And how do you propose to do that, short of shooting down Russian warplanes and bombing Russian ground forces or mercenaries? (the latter of which may have already happened).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I didn't say I don't care that Russia is intervening, I said that I'd prefer Russian soldiers die than my own country's soldiers. I don't think Russia should be there either really, but if someone has to intervene, I'd prefer it not be my country.
This isn't coming from a place of sociopathic disdain for human suffering, as Baronveagh falsely suggests. Rather, its a complete lack of faith in the ability of my country's Government(s) (Tories and Labour) to not feth it up and made matters worse, based on their past track record.
You're all over the shop on this. All at once you're trying to claim that you care about people and its just that you think an intervention by your country will make it worse, and at the same time you're claiming you don't care if Russia undertakes an intervention that makes things a lot worse.
I mean, seriously. Do you trust the UK Tory Government to run a successful intervention?
Politicians are driven and constrained by domestic politics. It is impossible to hope for any kind of international operations while the domestic politics of so many countries is as incoherent as it is. Instead we get the first stage of an intervention hyped up, driven by shocking stories of atrocities. Then within months that fervor dies down, and people start moaning about mounting costs, about unclear end dates, and freaking out if there are casualties.
That's what needs to change. We need mature conversations about how difficult intervention can be, and how long they can take. But how, ultimately, they can be worth it because the alternative of doing nothing is plainly abhorrent. With a proper understanding of long and how tough these things can be, it means there will plenty of interventions we decide simply aren't worth the cost, but if we do decide to go ahead, we will actually commit the resources and the time to do it properly.
And how do you propose to do that, short of shooting down Russian warplanes and bombing Russian ground forces or mercenaries? (the latter of which may have already happened).
It isn't possible in Syria now, because we're multiple countries chose to intervene. But following your 'no country should interfere rule' you establish a ban on any foreign fighters entering the country, and limits on what supplies can be provided. Penalties for breach would be economic sanctions and asset confiscation. Much as we've seen the US do to Russia over their actions in the Ukraine.
Believe me, I'm recovering from exposure to high concentrations of caustic vapors atm, I know of which I speak. Or type, atm, since talking is a bit hard for me right now.
No. History is important, but it's beyond stupid to think post WWI foreign policy has remained unchanged until today. I don't agree with a lot of existing ME policy today, but it is miles from the colonial attitude of the early 20th century.
If it's so far from it, why have the UK and US continued to enforce it? You do know that the first Iraq war had very little to do with defending poor Kuwait, but rather to prevent Iraq from becoming a strong central power in the Middle East. The Iraqis actually asked the US if it was OK to invade Kuwait and the US response was 'Yes' since Kuwait had literally been stealing Iraq's oil out from under it. When Saddam actually did it, someone pointed out that they would now effectively dominate the region, and the US and England flipped.
You're all over the shop on this. All at once you're trying to claim that you care about people and its just that you think an intervention by your country will make it worse, and at the same time you're claiming you don't care if Russia undertakes an intervention that makes things a lot worse.
Because, and, this is what I actually accuse him of, not being heartless, but being racist. He cares not one whit if other people die, as long as his own are safe.
and, Shadow, let me add, if intervention never works, I'm impressed with your English skills for all the German that you must be speaking in England these days under the Reich.
I'm racist? Last I checked, Russians are Caucasian, like me. Thats not racism, its nationalism. And NO, they are not the same thing. I don't really want Russian troops to die either, but if any soldiers are to die, I'd just prefer it not be my own countrymen.
Please go back and read what the feth I actually wrote. Not once did I say that interventions never work. I'm generally in favour of defensive interventions, to defend one nation against the aggression of another nation. WW2. First Korean War. Falklands War. First Iraq War. If North Korea invaded South Korea again, I'd advocate intervention.
What I DID say is that I do not trust my Government not to make a mess of it. I do not want another decade long Iraq style ground intervention where our troops get bogged down in peace keeping operations, occupying a nation so we can enact regime change.
And finally...invoking Godwin's Law I see. Charming. If you're having to resort to personal insults like this, I'm going to assume you have nothing further to say that is worth responding to and will consider this conversation over. Have the last word if you like, I don't care.
Not knowing what Godwin's law actually is or says, I see. Since at no point did I compare something to Hitler, merely pointed out that if intervention did not work, England would be under the Reich.
Assad is a war criminal and mass murderer. He is, by most measures, as bad or worse than many of the men who swung at Nuremberg. For strategic reasons, Russia wishes him to remain in power, as they have lost every other port on the Med but Tartus. And have no problem supplying him with material, if not the weapons themselves, to produce chemical WMDs. Several of the recovered chemical weapons components from verified chemical weapon attacks are of Russian manufacture. Therefore, as I see it, the idea of a Western Intervention is the lesser of two evils.
I'm being quite literal when I say that there's not much one can do to make this worse. This is a regime that is gassing children in the streets, while the very worst in fanaticism and terrorism fester like an open wound.. At that point, a nuclear fireball is a marginal improvement, because at least it's over.
I believe that, through diplomacy, Russia's strategic concerns can be alleviated, though God alone knows if Putin will listen to anyone at this point. However, at this point, because of the actions and inactions that have been taken, this nightmare will continue to destabilize the region, bar a large scale military intervention. It also will continue to destabilize other regions, some not even bordering Syria, as the diaspora of Syrian refugees continues.
I reject many of the arguments that i have heard here, because I have heard them before, used to defend indifference in the face of unimaginable horror. From men who'd end whole cities in vengeance for a few thousand of their own people, but said that England should stand alone against the Blitz. Who pointed to the law, rather than justice, and sent Jewish refugees back to Germany, to their deaths. Who sent over a million Russian civilians to their deaths when all was o'er and won!
And after all was unveiled, boasted of their righteousness having cast down the hun!
On the subject of Syria being the UK:s responsibility: the UK and the US pushed for Operation Iraqi Freedom despite the rest of the world telling you it was a bad idea with a casus belli that was dubious at best. You went ahead anyway and created a power vacuum that's still making a mess of the whole region.
It might not be your problem, but that doesn't absolve you of the fact that you were instrumental in creating the fine mess in the first place. A mess that other people are now having to take the consequences of, while you wring your hands and claim it's "not your responsibility".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm racist? Last I checked, Russians are Caucasian, like me. Thats not racism, its nationalism.
Not all Russians are European. There is plenty of Asian Russians too.
Also, I object against the use of the word 'Caucasian' to mean people light-skinned people of European origin. Caucasians are a very different people from Europeans (and funnily enough, in Russia we often call them blacks).
And what color are the civilians in Syria that you are so against saving, even long before Russians came into the discussion?
Syrians are white, their skin colour isn't any darker than that of other Mediterranean peoples. Not that it matters. Wanting to abandon the people of Syria is not racist, regardless of the colour of their skin.
Assad is a war criminal and mass murderer. He is, by most measures, as bad or worse than many of the men who swung at Nuremberg. For strategic reasons, Russia wishes him to remain in power, as they have lost every other port on the Med but Tartus. And have no problem supplying him with material, if not the weapons themselves, to produce chemical WMDs. Several of the recovered chemical weapons components from verified chemical weapon attacks are of Russian manufacture. Therefore, as I see it, the idea of a Western Intervention is the lesser of two evils.
I'm being quite literal when I say that there's not much one can do to make this worse. This is a regime that is gassing children in the streets, while the very worst in fanaticism and terrorism fester like an open wound.. At that point, a nuclear fireball is a marginal improvement, because at least it's over.
I believe that, through diplomacy, Russia's strategic concerns can be alleviated, though God alone knows if Putin will listen to anyone at this point. However, at this point, because of the actions and inactions that have been taken, this nightmare will continue to destabilize the region, bar a large scale military intervention. It also will continue to destabilize other regions, some not even bordering Syria, as the diaspora of Syrian refugees continues.
I reject many of the arguments that i have heard here, because I have heard them before, used to defend indifference in the face of unimaginable horror. From men who'd end whole cities in vengeance for a few thousand of their own people, but said that England should stand alone against the Blitz. Who pointed to the law, rather than justice, and sent Jewish refugees back to Germany, to their deaths. Who sent over a million Russian civilians to their deaths when all was o'er and won!
And after all was unveiled, boasted of their righteousness having cast down the hun!
And what, pray tell would a Western intervention solve?
Look at Libya. Khadaffi wasn't any better than Assad, the West intervened and cast him down, and now Libya is worse than it ever was under Khadaffi. It would be no different in Syria. Syria would descend into warlordism and be a safe haven for all terrorists the moment Assad is gone. Syria would never be stable again. And none of the warlords that oppose Assad is any better than him. Assad is the best possible ruler Syria could have at this moment, that simply is the sad reality.
Not to mention the oxymoron in claiming that you're not racist because the people in question supposedly are the same race as you. The arbitrary division of people into races is, after all, the lynchpin of racism.
Syrians are white, their skin colour isn't any darker than that of other Mediterranean peoples. Not that it matters. Wanting to abandon the people of Syria is not racist, regardless of the colour of their skin.
Indeed. I'm not being racist, I'm being pessimistic and defeatist. If I thought we could intervene in Syria and solve the conflict quickly without getting bogged down for decades to come and expending hundreds or thousands of British lives like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be more amenable to the idea of intervention.
I think our intervention will only make matters worse in the long run, like it did in Libya.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not to mention the oxymoron in claiming that you're not racist because the people in question supposedly are the same race as you. The arbitrary division of people into races is, after all, the lynchpin of racism.
What??? Thats some impressive mental gymnastics.
Doesn't that mean Baronlveagh is being racist too? How can one make an accusation of racism if its racist to make arbitrary divisions of race? Who am I even being racist against, then? You can't name a victim group of my alleged racism after all, because that would be racist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Syria being the UK:s responsibility: the UK and the US pushed for Operation Iraqi Freedom despite the rest of the world telling you it was a bad idea with a casus belli that was dubious at best. You went ahead anyway and created a power vacuum that's still making a mess of the whole region.
It might not be your problem, but that doesn't absolve you of the fact that you were instrumental in creating the fine mess in the first place. A mess that other people are now having to take the consequences of, while you wring your hands and claim it's "not your responsibility".
Right, and then the Iraqi Government demanded our withdrawal.
Ergo, no longer our responsibility. We were ordered to leave before the job was done.
How does it require any mental gymnastics at all? Racism doesn't require races to objectively exist, it's enough that the argument being presented assumes they do. There is no requirement to be racist "towards" anyone.
I also don't necessarily agree that you're racist; I'm arguing that you used an argument with racist implications to fend off accusations of racism. There's a difference. I'll happily (well, you get the point) hold my hand up and admit to having done the same on occasion.
EDIT: The mess doesn't stop being your fault because someone tells you to get out several years after causing said mess in the first place.
I don't follow your logic. It seems rather circular to me. By accusing me of racism, isn't Baronlveagh himself arbitrarily dividing people into racial categories?
Note that he was the one who brought race into the argument. I was talking about nationality.
You're the one who specifically invoked Russians being "Caucasian" as a reason for why you couldn't be racist. Baron made a (rather unsupported) accusation of racism, but that accusation does not require Baron to subscribe to such ideas, only that he holds that you do.
"Race" as an objective reality does not have to actually exist for racism to be possible; it is enough that we believe it does and act accordingly.
Plus, I'd argue nationality is just as arbitrary, but that's a different story.
You're the one who specifically invoked Russians being "Caucasian" as a reason for why you couldn't be racist. Baron made a (rather unsupported) accusation of racism, but that accusation does not require Baron to subscribe to such ideas, only that he holds that you do.
I specifically invoked Russians as being Caucasian because that is who I was specifically referring to when Baron accused me of racism. I find it bizarre to be accused of racism against my own ethnic group.
My point is that I was talking about Nationality. His accusation of racism was a non sequitur. I could have just as easily have said I'd prefer French or American soldiers die in Syria.
You're the one who specifically invoked Russians being "Caucasian" as a reason for why you couldn't be racist. Baron made a (rather unsupported) accusation of racism, but that accusation does not require Baron to subscribe to such ideas, only that he holds that you do.
No its not. Considering other racial groups to be inferior to your own racial group is the lynchpin of racism. Simply acknowledging the existence of these racial groups is not racism. Otherwise, every fething Government Census and diversity questionnaire in history is also racist.
If you are not yourself accusing me of racism, why are you being so pedantic? Are you just playing devil's advocate?
Syrians are white, their skin colour isn't any darker than that of other Mediterranean peoples. Not that it matters. Wanting to abandon the people of Syria is not racist, regardless of the colour of their skin.
Indeed. I'm not being racist, I'm being pessimistic and defeatist. If I thought we could intervene in Syria and solve the conflict quickly without getting bogged down for decades to come and expending hundreds or thousands of British lives like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd be more amenable to the idea of intervention.
I think our intervention will only make matters worse in the long run, like it did in Libya.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Not to mention the oxymoron in claiming that you're not racist because the people in question supposedly are the same race as you. The arbitrary division of people into races is, after all, the lynchpin of racism.
What??? Thats some impressive mental gymnastics.
Doesn't that mean Baronlveagh is being racist too? How can one make an accusation of racism if its racist to make arbitrary divisions of race? Who am I even being racist against, then? You can't name a victim group of my alleged racism after all, because that would be racist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: On the subject of Syria being the UK:s responsibility: the UK and the US pushed for Operation Iraqi Freedom despite the rest of the world telling you it was a bad idea with a casus belli that was dubious at best. You went ahead anyway and created a power vacuum that's still making a mess of the whole region.
It might not be your problem, but that doesn't absolve you of the fact that you were instrumental in creating the fine mess in the first place. A mess that other people are now having to take the consequences of, while you wring your hands and claim it's "not your responsibility".
Right, and then the Iraqi Government demanded our withdrawal.
Ergo, no longer our responsibility. We were ordered to leave before the job was done.
As Libya and others taught us. Western intervention rarely works as we planned, who is to say we will not mess up Syria too. Our "Rebels" have done ernough damage.
Yeah, Iraq did not want western troops staying so we left ft on there legitimate request. Staying would of basically been occupying there teritory, and caused all manner of trouble.
Iron_Captain wrote: Syria would descend into warlordism and be a safe haven for all terrorists the moment Assad is gone. Syria would never be stable again. And none of the warlords that oppose Assad is any better than him. Assad is the best possible ruler Syria could have at this moment, that simply is the sad reality.
Syria is a safe-haven for most terrorists with him there. I know the IRA is out now, but they were never big in Syria to begin with. As far as Assad being the best ruler of Syria atm, I find that deeply suspect coming from you, cap, as Russia paid a whole lot of money to put his father there, and just bullied him into giving the territory of the Port of Tartus to Russia as the newest part of the Russian Federation. Something tells me that deal might be off if anyone else were to rise to power in Syria.
And, again, unless Russia is willing to commit genocide on behalf of Assad, the warlordism is already there and not going away. I'll give Shadow his Godwin now, it's like if Stalin tried to reinstate Hitler as the ruler of Germany after the war. It never would have worked. Russia knows that putting Assad back in power will never work, but the current situation keeps him weak enough that he'd agree to pretty much anything to stay in power. Which suits Putin just fine.
BaronIveagh wrote: Please point to the western intervention post WW2 that had a plan beyond 'we leave' for what happens after they win?
With this in mind, knowing that our Governments never plan adequately for the aftermath of their foreign interventions...you still favour Western intervention in Syria???
What makes you think this time will be any different?
With this in mind, knowing that our Governments never plan adequately for the aftermath of their foreign interventions...you still favour Western intervention in Syria???
What makes you think this time will be any different?
I don't. But as I see it, even if you assume that every last western government is an utter group of morons that couldn't plan a kindergarten museum visit, there are a few things you can count on.
One, they're most likely not going to use chemical weapons to mass murder civilians. This is already a vast improvement over the current situation.
Two they're not likely to allow Turkey to do it either. Again, big improvement.
Three, when Israel finally goes over the deep end, the Kurds are a ready made Middle Eastern ally for the west, instead of a bunch of resentful donkey-caves who only remember how the west fethed them repeatedly.
Four, and I know Captain will be irritated by this one, but it reduces Russia's influence in the region. I know most people in the UK have their heads as far into the sand as they can in denial that this effects them, but right now the Russians are keeping fuel prices artificially high via Syria. Which is effecting Europe, including the UK.
Further, Assad isn't even apparently listening to the Russians now, as the slaughter outside Damascus is getting absurd. Maybe the words 'Total War' don't mean the same thing to me as they do to you lot, but that's what's happening now. Assad has ordered the deaths of every man, woman, and child in an area about the size of Manchester.
Re Syria: An estimated 500, 000 people gave been killed in Syria by bullets, bombs, artillery, stabbings, beatings, hangings, survivable but untreated wounds, lack of medicine, hunger, thirst, illness, etc. The world scarcely cared by and large.
Assad kills a few dozen with poison gas and suddenly the world lost it's mind. Why? Why is killing thru 'conventional' means including removing access to food and water acceptable but using poison gas sends everyone into an apoplectic paroxysm?
Re Isis: Its ideology is incompatible with western values, also incompatible with negotiation, coexistence, acceptance of other people's rights and sovereignty, etc. It makes or supports terrorist attacks in the west whenever possible. So why is it hard to see the west must either accept constant terrorist threats and attacks, risk it acquiring massive military power someday and launch an all out war with WMDs or destroy it? The third option seems to be the best of a bad, sad bunch.
Techpriestsupport wrote: Re Syria: An estimated 500, 000 people gave been killed in Syria by bullets, bombs, artillery, stabbings, beatings, hangings, survivable but untreated wounds, lack of medicine, hunger, thirst, illness, etc. The world scarcely cared by and large.
Assad kills a few dozen with poison gas and suddenly the world lost it's mind. Why? Why is killing thru 'conventional' means including removing access to food and water acceptable but using poison gas sends everyone into an apoplectic paroxysm?
Re Isis: Its ideology is incompatible with western values, also incompatible with negotiation, coexistence, acceptance of other people's rights and sovereignty, etc. It makes or supports terrorist attacks in the west whenever possible. So why is it hard to see the west must either accept constant terrorist threats and attacks, risk it acquiring massive military power someday and launch an all out war with WMDs or destroy it? The third option seems to be the best of a bad, sad bunch.
The world didn't scarcely care though. There was a lot of concern and outrage if you could call it that, but nobody was really willing to step in to end it. So as the years went by people cared less because there wasn't anything you could do anyway. Assad crossed multiple lines the world was shocked by at the time, bombing protesters, then barrel bombing civilians, then bombing hospitals, aid convoys etc. Poison gas just represents one of those moral lines, but one that doesn't really crop up as often as the other ones, so each time it happens (which is heavily disputed, just look at discussion groups on social media where you have people thinking its the rebels) it has a larger impact so to speak. Media report on it because its 'novel', hospital #386 getting bombed isn't for the media. The other atrocities have been going on for years, the outrage was there, but its hard to bring the outrage for years. Poison gas just is one of those moral lines that has been crossed several times in the last 7 years, but nowhere near enough to create that drag other atrocities have under their belt.
Techpriestsupport wrote:Re Syria: An estimated 500, 000 people gave been killed in Syria by bullets, bombs, artillery, stabbings, beatings, hangings, survivable but untreated wounds, lack of medicine, hunger, thirst, illness, etc. The world scarcely cared by and large.
Assad kills a few dozen with poison gas and suddenly the world lost it's mind. Why? Why is killing thru 'conventional' means including removing access to food and water acceptable but using poison gas sends everyone into an apoplectic paroxysm?
Re Isis: Its ideology is incompatible with western values, also incompatible with negotiation, coexistence, acceptance of other people's rights and sovereignty, etc. It makes or supports terrorist attacks in the west whenever possible. So why is it hard to see the west must either accept constant terrorist threats and attacks, risk it acquiring massive military power someday and launch an all out war with WMDs or destroy it? The third option seems to be the best of a bad, sad bunch.
For much the same reason that there would be outrage if Assad vaporized a city with a nuke. It's not what he did, per se, but what it represents and the history of it that get's people stirred up. Personally, I have a bad history with being burned with chemicals, so for me, it's a personal thing.
Also, the body count is way above a few dozen for chemical attacks.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
The world didn't scarcely care though. There was a lot of concern and outrage if you could call it that, but nobody was really willing to step in to end it. So as the years went by people cared less because there wasn't anything you could do anyway. Assad crossed multiple lines the world was shocked by at the time, bombing protesters, then barrel bombing civilians, then bombing hospitals, aid convoys etc. Poison gas just represents one of those moral lines, but one that doesn't really crop up as often as the other ones, so each time it happens (which is heavily disputed, just look at discussion groups on social media where you have people thinking its the rebels) it has a larger impact so to speak. Media report on it because its 'novel', hospital #386 getting bombed isn't for the media. The other atrocities have been going on for years, the outrage was there, but its hard to bring the outrage for years. Poison gas just is one of those moral lines that has been crossed several times in the last 7 years, but nowhere near enough to create that drag other atrocities have under their belt.
I called it years ago and pointed out that it was better that a few soldiers die deposing Assad right then and engage in nation building rather than let things mushroom out of control. I was told I was a horrible warmonger who only wanted to see Americans die. Then we got ISIS, and Assad using poison gas, and attacks spreading into Iraq and Turkey and Libya. It became millions displaced and 500,000 dead. So now who's the horrible warmonger, Daka?
Yet posters still hide behind excuses like claiming that no current government besides glorious Putin can be trusted to put together a coherent government and that somehow it would still, SOMEHOW make things worse than they are currently. We're currently at full on, mad max, pyramids of human skulls bad, where exactly do any of you think things can go from here that would qualify as 'worse'? Unless someone here knows how to open a real warp rift and let the warp come spilling out, we've pretty much maxed out the practical levels of 'bad'.
Speaking of bad: Russian transport crashes, kills almost 40, also, more Chlorine gas used on Civilians in Ghouta (which has in fact reached the point that it's a foot note compared to a plane crash.)
I've found it's mostly if not only Iron Captain taking the pro-Russia stance, so IMO the idea that Russia could do a better (or even non-worse) job seems to have pretty limited support around here.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've found it's mostly if not only Iron Captain taking the pro-Russia stance, so IMO the idea that Russia could do a better (or even non-worse) job seems to have pretty limited support around here.
Yeah, even I won't say that Russia will do a better or non-worse job. Like I said before, Russia is actually going to do a worse job because Russia isn't going to care what happens in Syria as long as they have the influence they want in Damascus. So yeah, even if Assad does go to ''piling up skulls to build a skull throne'' level of bad, Russia is just going to shrug at best. Syria being a totally horrible place in a state of constant conflict actually suits them. Russia thrives on conflict. More conflict is more weapon sales is more influence is more money is more power is more conflict is more weapon sales ad. inf. After selling oil and gas, selling weapons is the biggest thing that keeps driving Russia onward, so having a nice bloodthirsty dictator friend with a need for lots of weapons is good for business. The weapons trade is all about pragmatism. 'Rebuilding' is for Yanks and other people who can afford to waste money.
Disciple of Fate wrote:
The world didn't scarcely care though. There was a lot of concern and outrage if you could call it that, but nobody was really willing to step in to end it. So as the years went by people cared less because there wasn't anything you could do anyway. Assad crossed multiple lines the world was shocked by at the time, bombing protesters, then barrel bombing civilians, then bombing hospitals, aid convoys etc. Poison gas just represents one of those moral lines, but one that doesn't really crop up as often as the other ones, so each time it happens (which is heavily disputed, just look at discussion groups on social media where you have people thinking its the rebels) it has a larger impact so to speak. Media report on it because its 'novel', hospital #386 getting bombed isn't for the media. The other atrocities have been going on for years, the outrage was there, but its hard to bring the outrage for years. Poison gas just is one of those moral lines that has been crossed several times in the last 7 years, but nowhere near enough to create that drag other atrocities have under their belt.
I called it years ago and pointed out that it was better that a few soldiers die deposing Assad right then and engage in nation building rather than let things mushroom out of control. I was told I was a horrible warmonger who only wanted to see Americans die. Then we got ISIS, and Assad using poison gas, and attacks spreading into Iraq and Turkey and Libya. It became millions displaced and 500,000 dead. So now who's the horrible warmonger, Daka?
Yet posters still hide behind excuses like claiming that no current government besides glorious Putin can be trusted to put together a coherent government and that somehow it would still, SOMEHOW make things worse than they are currently. We're currently at full on, mad max, pyramids of human skulls bad, where exactly do any of you think things can go from here that would qualify as 'worse'? Unless someone here knows how to open a real warp rift and let the warp come spilling out, we've pretty much maxed out the practical levels of 'bad'.
Speaking of bad: Russian transport crashes, kills almost 40, also, more Chlorine gas used on Civilians in Ghouta (which has in fact reached the point that it's a foot note compared to a plane crash.)
I was pro intervention in the early years from 2011, when there was still some moderate opposition and such. By now the world has stood by for so long there isn't anything left salvaging so to speak as it would clash with Russia to help the few rebels left over vesides the Kurds. Intervention is seen as a dirty thing nowadays because of Iraq, but Iraq went from a reasonably stable state to Syria level, something that could hardly be done in Syria as it is on Syria level already. Politically Western government and voters don't have the long term inclination for nation building
As for Putin, we know why people think he can solve it. Him and Assad won't give a gak for collateral damage once the clean up phase starts. Its easier to root out the extremists when half the village just gets shipped off with them to some jail anyway. Even if Assad wins, half the country won't suddenly just forgive and forget him, its going to be decades of Amnesty International reports on Syrian prisons and torture. Well, at least some people believe it will stop the Syrian refugee problem too. Its not just from Dakka though, other social media has people more on the far left (the ones who think the rebels and the West are the evil empire) and right (who like Putin taking off the gloves) side of politics going "Russia/Putin stronk" due to Syria, from my own experience the very same people opposing Western intervention (for maximum irony of course )
I saw both reported, sadly circling back to the media, the plane crash is more interesting, poison gas is losing the outrage 'wars' after the (what time is it now?) 10th or so time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've found it's mostly if not only Iron Captain taking the pro-Russia stance, so IMO the idea that Russia could do a better (or even non-worse) job seems to have pretty limited support around here.
To some extent perhaps. But there is also the distinction of people not wanting the West to do the job while happily supporting a much more murderous approach as long as its "not us". FB, that hive of scum and villainy has some absolutely mental viewpoints, but quite a sizeable amount of Americans, Germans, British and such can be seen taking the side of Russia and Assad. Its fascinating to see how little they know/misinformed they are (on FB that is).
NinthMusketeer wrote: I've found it's mostly if not only Iron Captain taking the pro-Russia stance, so IMO the idea that Russia could do a better (or even non-worse) job seems to have pretty limited support around here.
Yeah, even I won't say that Russia will do a better or non-worse job. Like I said before, Russia is actually going to do a worse job because Russia isn't going to care what happens in Syria as long as they have the influence they want in Damascus. So yeah, even if Assad does go to ''piling up skulls to build a skull throne'' level of bad, Russia is just going to shrug at best. Syria being a totally horrible place in a state of constant conflict actually suits them. Russia thrives on conflict. More conflict is more weapon sales is more influence is more money is more power is more conflict is more weapon sales ad. inf. After selling oil and gas, selling weapons is the biggest thing that keeps driving Russia onward, so having a nice bloodthirsty dictator friend with a need for lots of weapons is good for business. The weapons trade is all about pragmatism. 'Rebuilding' is for Yanks and other people who can afford to waste money.
Problem with this is that Assad doesn't have the financials to live in the warhammer world, so he has to borrow the money for those weapons from the Russian government likely. In the end prolonging the war is also costing Russia momey, which is why Russia is still there even though Putin said it was officially over. Russia just can't force an end to the conflict due to Turkey and the US. Frozen wars are only helpful in countries that aren't aligned with Russia, no point in letting an ally suffer as there is nothing for Russia to gain.
BaronIveagh wrote: If it's so far from it, why have the UK and US continued to enforce it? You do know that the first Iraq war had very little to do with defending poor Kuwait, but rather to prevent Iraq from becoming a strong central power in the Middle East. The Iraqis actually asked the US if it was OK to invade Kuwait and the US response was 'Yes' since Kuwait had literally been stealing Iraq's oil out from under it. When Saddam actually did it, someone pointed out that they would now effectively dominate the region, and the US and England flipped.
Not quite. The incident you're describing was actually a diplomatic feth up. The Iraqi had massed troops on the border, and the US contacted them, using a very neutral tone as they hadn't yet gotten confirmation from the Whitehouse on how hard to push the issue. This was the right call given the concern was over how strongly Saddam was posturing, it wasn't thought he would actually invade. Saddam took the neutral language of the letter as US weakness, and barreled on in to Kuwait.
So no, the US never told Iraq it could invade. That's a really contrived interpretation of what happened.
Now, I'll say again, I'm not going to defend the West's policy in the middle east. But the mistakes are of a very different kind to the old colonial policies you want to condemn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Please go back and read what the feth I actually wrote. Not once did I say that interventions never work. I'm generally in favour of defensive interventions, to defend one nation against the aggression of another nation. WW2. First Korean War. Falklands War. First Iraq War. If North Korea invaded South Korea again, I'd advocate intervention.
It's a false distinction as the difference you draw between defensive interventions and other kinds of intervention seem to be based on whether national boundaries have been drawn and formally signed off on, which is arbitrary at best. After all, North Korea and South Korea were only split formally in 1948. So why would invasion by NK in 1950 be a 'defensive intervention', but allying with Syrian rebels after they'd fought and held territory for five years be a regular and therefore bad kind of intervention?
You've missed entirely the actual primary reason for when an intervention will succeed - whether the local force we are allying with are capable governors with popular support. You left Vietnam off your list, perhaps because the British weren't involved? Anyhow, Vietnam is an example of a 'defensive intervention' by your definition, not that different from Korea in many ways, that ended up quite a balls up. The problem was the US backed a string of really bad presidents, each of whom screwed up in their own unique way.
In contrast, the Malaysian Emergency was the bad kind of intervention, by your definition. Entirely local communist forces were going about their business of trying to overthrow the state, to which British and Commonwealth forces decided to come and prevent. It took a decade, but it was successful and primary reason is simple, the Malay government we worked with was a legitimate, functioning government with popular support.
Anyhow, that aside I still think your position is all over the shop. This is the first time you've tried to lay down some kind of criteria for when intervention should take place. The reasoning wasn't 100% but it was still a big improvement over the previous stance of 'we are bad at intervention so shouldn't, Russia might be even worse but they aren't us so I guess they can if they want'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Assad is a war criminal and mass murderer. He is, by most measures, as bad or worse than many of the men who swung at Nuremberg. For strategic reasons, Russia wishes him to remain in power, as they have lost every other port on the Med but Tartus. And have no problem supplying him with material, if not the weapons themselves, to produce chemical WMDs. Several of the recovered chemical weapons components from verified chemical weapon attacks are of Russian manufacture. Therefore, as I see it, the idea of a Western Intervention is the lesser of two evils.
I'm being quite literal when I say that there's not much one can do to make this worse.
Agreed on all points. The really stand out point, to me, is that even when Assad completes a conventional victory over the rebel forces, Syria isn't going to go back to being a stable country under Assad. People don't get gassed and carpet bombed by a dictator, then passively accept him as their ruler again.
And that's where it really annoys me that people are so quick to claim Syria is part of some cynical Western, anti-Russian thing. If that were the case, the best thing that sinister cabal could do to hurt Russia would be to leave them tied at the hip to Assad, and watch over the next decade or more as Syria just gets uglier and uglier.
I think the boat has sailed on direct intervention. The more moderate factions that we could have supported are basically gone. But there is still plenty we can do to move Syria towards a government post-Assad. As you say assurances can be made to Putin that he can still have his port, what matters is a new Syrian government that can move past this.
RT claims that the US is going to launch a massive false flag chemical attack in southern Syria in order to escalate the situation and possibly drag Israel and Jordan into the war.
BaronIveagh wrote: RT claims that the US is going to launch a massive false flag chemical attack in southern Syria in order to escalate the situation and possibly drag Israel and Jordan into the war.
I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
We learn by doing. - Admiral James T. Kirk
Sometimes in life, wise people listen to the advice and tutelage of others to improve their situation. Other times, a belligerent person insists on doing their really stupid thing because they feel they know better than the tutors. Like teenagers. Or the Iraqi government, when they made the US leave.
Lets be real, the only reason Iraq didnt devolve into civil war before the US removed Saddam is because Saddam kept the place in line with an iron fist. Iraq is a nation created and drawn by foreign powers according to colonial designs without much regard to the ethic, economic, political or cultural realities on the ground. It is not, and never has been, a singular nation with a coherent identity. The US staying may have delayed the inevitable, but Iraq has always been an unstable pressure cooker. It's going to have to sort its own stuff out, and the Iraq of today may end up being several different states in the future. This is possibly something the US should have worked on earlier. The destruction or rewriting of Sykes-Picot continues to play heavily with almost all factions in every conflict in the region.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
...I think you've just described how I learned to ride a bike.
I get what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't want to abdicate the region to waste our efforts and blood... but, do we really have specific criterias and milestones that would indicate that we could take of at least one training wheel?
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
Yeah... pretty spot on.
I disagreed with pulling out as I thought the Obama Administration didn't fully engage the Iraqis to get the necessary SOPA agreement (as in, their "heart" wasn't into it). However, to be fair, he was elected twice to draw down the war so... in a way, the American voters signaled that enough was enough.
Furthermore, you really can't fault the Iraqis from wanting more agency to operate/live in their own country. It may not have been wisest decision on their part...but it is their decision ultimately.
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
At some point, we need to take the training wheels off...
Yeah, but typically you'd do that after they've practiced with the training wheels. Not just show it to them, then take them off, and sling them down the road.
...I think you've just described how I learned to ride a bike.
I get what you're saying and I certainly wouldn't want to abdicate the region to waste our efforts and blood... but, do we really have specific criterias and milestones that would indicate that we could take of at least one training wheel?
godardc wrote: I have just read that it is the iraqi government that ask you, american friends, to leave iraq ? Really ?
I mean, the second you went, everything fell apart. They were THAT stupid ?
Stupid? Not quite. The US occupation was very unpopular in 2008 in Iraq. There was a particularly problematic clause, where US personnel were immune from prosecution within Iraq for any crimes committed there. This infuriated the populace when there were some high-profile incidents like the mistreatement of prisoners at Abu Graib, the Haditha Massacre, and the Nisour Square Massacre mixed with the perception (and in some cases, the reality) that US troops faced no penalties for alleged crimes. The Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was not a a popular dude and there were a lot of big protests. The Iraqis wanted some things that were not really workable, like prosecuting US troops domestically, getting warrants before going into homes suspected to house insurgents, etc. This is not something the US would sign, so the Iraqi Parliament refused to sign as well. Without a legal SOFA, the US would have had to pull out immediately - at the end of 2008... or else they could invade a friendly US ally, I suppose. Not only would this have been an immediate disaster since the security situation was bad, it also would have tossed that gakky security situation right into the lap of an incoming president. So, there were a lot of political angles.
The then President, George W. Bush, negotiated as best he could and ultimately signed a SOFA that agreed to troops being pulled out by 2011 with the understanding that the new administration would continue working on an updated SOFA that extended the US presence as long as needed. It turned out that the original sticking point - immunity for US troops - was not something the Iraqi parliament could get over. The then-President Barack Obama tried to negotiate for 10,000 troops to remain in country as is, but wound up having to settle for a much smaller number and some contractors iirc.
So it was a confluence of unfortunate circumstances. You can point to a lot of different people and assign blame at various points, but no one involved was stupid, just boxed in my previous bad decisions and events.
Yeah... pretty spot on.
I disagreed with pulling out as I thought the Obama Administration didn't fully engage the Iraqis to get the necessary SOPA agreement (as in, their "heart" wasn't into it). However, to be fair, he was elected twice to draw down the war so... in a way, the American voters signaled that enough was enough.
Furthermore, you really can't fault the Iraqis from wanting more agency to operate/live in their own country. It may not have been wisest decision on their part...but it is their decision ultimately.
Obama really did half ass his attempts to get a SOPA.
That being said Bush tried as hard as possible to get one and failed. McCain would have also tried as much as possible and failed. Any Iraqi leader who would agree to SOPA would not live long enough to be tossed out of office before being torn apart by an angry mob and cannibalized by the mob like Johan de Witt. SOPA was doomed the moment Iraq had actual elections.
Eeeeeh, I'd argue it was doomed the moment abuses by military personnel came out. Without those to latch onto and fuel the anger, there would have been less resistance to US forces staying, even after elections.
You needed those instances to bring the issue of soldiers committing crimes without being held accountable to Iraqi law into the spotlight.
Once you had verified cases of soldiers abusing people and, from the point of view of the Iraqi people, getting away with it, there was no way for the Iraqi people to allow them to stay which didn't ring of "Well, we've traded one lot of soldiers who could torture and abuse us for another lot, so what was the point?"
A Town Called Malus wrote: Eeeeeh, I'd argue it was doomed the moment abuses by military personnel came out. Without those to latch onto and fuel the anger, there would have been less resistance to US forces staying, even after elections.
You needed those instances to bring the issue of soldiers committing crimes without being held accountable to Iraqi law into the spotlight.
Once you had verified cases of soldiers abusing people and, from the point of view of the Iraqi people, getting away with it, there was no way for the Iraqi people to allow them to stay which didn't ring of "Well, we've traded one lot of soldiers who could torture and abuse us for another lot, so what was the point?"
Mercenaries like blackwater were immune to Iraqi law and the UCMJ.
90% of the detainees at Abu Graib were never charged with any crimes and released. We were rounding people up unnecessary because we didn't have enough translators and then randomly torturing a lot of innocent civilians.
Then we allow them to hold real elections and got offended that they elected leaders whose only interest is having the USA leave ASAP.
To be entirely fair there is an element of logic to that. There are over seven billion people around which leaves quite a lot to be mistreated or die evey single day. To have an emotional response to each incident that one can hear about is not only excessively stressful but entirely pointless. Now obviously this doesn't mean that people just shouldn't care, but I find it difficult to fault people for not responding to events that happen all the time and they cannot reasonably do anything about. The place where the average first world person can make a difference about such things is the voting booth, where we can see that people being apathetic is the default outside of an unusual incident, and has been for as long as anyone's been voting.
I still have no idea how killing people with barrel bombs only become a war crime if you swap the conventional explosives out for a chemical weapon.
Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
There is a reason after WW1, with all the horribly atrocious weapons that were invented and used in that war, NBC weapons were the ones singled out as just to horrible to continue to use in future conflict.
I still have no idea how killing people with barrel bombs only become a war crime if you swap the conventional explosives out for a chemical weapon.
You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
Have you seen how the victims of artillery and bombing die?
Also, in the very early days when some of Assad's prisons were overrun it was proven many people taken for questioning were tortured to death. The response was to talk about whether we should start talking about doing something about talking about Assad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
If we consider government built bomb shelters a defense for the common folk, then NBC gear provided by government would be just as much of a defense.
It's hard to deny that it's a weird argument: killing a few dozen people with gas is crossing a line, but killing half a million with bullets and bombs is OK.
Well both are still war crimes. The media has just correctly noted one of the two war crimes just doesn't get attention anymore.
As for a US war:
Any war would require some serious nation building. Imagine the extent of damage that could be done to the overall region if the US just barges in, pushes the Assad regime to the point of implosion and just leaves? It would only make it a worse hell hole. Last time there wasn't a clear power in Syria we got IS and look where that crazy train ended up going. I still support intervention but its going to be so much harder today to do right. I don't doubt the competency of the US military to win, I very much question the civilian administration's ability to finish it.
Trump going to war against Assad needs a nationbuilding plan. Otherwise you would leave a massive power vacuum on the border of a NATO ally and Iraq. Worst of all, not finishing it properly would allow Assad and or Putin a chance to try and get back in it and feth over civilians for another few years, because none of the rebels have the power left to win. There is no power now that can just take over from Assad. Not engaging in nation building after toppling Assad is going to result in Somalian circumstances.
djones520 wrote: Because there is no defense against it for the common folk.
Case in point, there were people found dead who were in undamaged shelters at this location. They would possibly have survived conventional attacks, but the nature of this weapon makes that impossible to defend against it.
If we consider government built bomb shelters a defense for the common folk, then NBC gear provided by government would be just as much of a defense.
Just to add, we know the Russian/Syrian air force uses bunker buster bombs against underground and fortified hospitals. The nature of those bombs is even harder to protect yourself from than chemical weapons.
So the title of this thread refers to ISIS, but we're okay talking off-topic about Assad's gas attack? Hard to keep up with the rules on Dakka these days.
My girlfriend has a friend who's family is still in Syria, and when Trump bombed Assad's airfield she cried and was in a panic. Nevermind that the war has already killed 100,000s of people and the base was pretty empty, but she was in such fear that now that the US was involved "it would turn Syria into another Iraq". True story.
I guess we all just look at the world and see and believe what we want.
I hope things don't escalate and cooler heads prevail.
Which is why I think an actual intervention by the US is totally impossible. The popular and political will does not exist. I think you'll see a few ineffectual airstrikes and that's it.
I don't think even that is a good idea, to be honest. What's the point? It's better not to vacillate - all in, or all out, and all-in isn't a real option. The window to have made a real difference was years ago, and whether or not it was a good idea to have gotten involved then is debatable, what is not - it think - is that it's certainly closed now.
KTG17 wrote: So the title of this thread refers to ISIS, but we're okay talking off-topic about Assad's gas attack? Hard to keep up with the rules on Dakka these days.
I don't think the problem is that you started a thread, so much as it turned into a real gak show by like 6 posts in.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You have somewhat of a point, but how horrible the death is matters. To use an extreme example, torturing someone to death is considered a worse crime than shooting them in the head.
Have you seen how the victims of artillery and bombing die?
Also, in the very early days when some of Assad's prisons were overrun it was proven many people taken for questioning were tortured to death. The response was to talk about whether we should start talking about doing something about talking about Assad.
Personally on the average suffering scale I believe chemical attacks > artillery/bombs, though that depends on the chemical obviously. The thing is some/most victims of explosions die horrid deaths, vs gas where they all do. As for the rest, well I did say you have somewhat of a point--I didn't mean to disregard the argument but rather comment on the logic of chemical attacks being considered worse than generic bomb ones. At the end of the day it's just about where global society has deemed these things fall on the acceptability scale, which as always is one part logic one part history and one part emotion.
Which is why I think an actual intervention by the US is totally impossible. The popular and political will does not exist. I think you'll see a few ineffectual airstrikes and that's it.
I don't think even that is a good idea, to be honest. What's the point? It's better not to vacillate - all in, or all out, and all-in isn't a real option. The window to have made a real difference was years ago, and whether or not it was a good idea to have gotten involved then is debatable, what is not - it think - is that it's certainly closed now.
Agree, now there really is no one left to support. You would have to start from the ground up. All the airstrikes will do is destroy some equipment and potentially adding a few weeks to the war Assad is inevitably going to win. Weeks in which more lives will be lost.
Personally I would still agree to an intervention, because the loss of life before Assad crushes Idlib is going to be immense. Likely thousands if not tens of thousands of deaths and tens if not hundreds of thousands of refugees to avoid. But realistically the political will isn't there to see such a massive undertaking through. The second you leave too soon is going to see conflict restart in a Saudi-Iranian struggle for political dominance. The West does not want another 10 year occupation, because the general population just doesn't care what happens half the world over.
To be honest even not doing anything will have the US take heat. Its just the way it is when the US has hegemony, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
To be honest even not doing anything will have the US take heat. Its just the way it is when the US has hegemony, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
To me... I'd just send cruise missiles to every known Syrian aircrafts and aircraft hangers to send the message.
Other than that? UN, GCC or NATO can deal with the fall out.
KTG17 wrote: So the title of this thread refers to ISIS, but we're okay talking off-topic about Assad's gas attack? Hard to keep up with the rules on Dakka these days.
My girlfriend has a friend who's family is still in Syria, and when Trump bombed Assad's airfield she cried and was in a panic. Nevermind that the war has already killed 100,000s of people and the base was pretty empty, but she was in such fear that now that the US was involved "it would turn Syria into another Iraq". True story.
I guess we all just look at the world and see and believe what we want.
I hope things don't escalate and cooler heads prevail.
Aye... We have to be careful. We could end up with another Iraq, libya or Somalia.
No one wants that. Even keeping Assad beats that gak show.
Another power vacuum failed state... We do need to give the likes of I sis a second chance.
I gave up on believing Russians since about Mid Ukraine.
You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ? You know that, not even once, Assad was proven guilty of chemical use in the ghouta ? And the Russian are asking right now for an investigation ? Why not giving him time to be proven guilty or not ?
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof.
What is even more sad, is my own president is like Dakka: too happy to show he is stronger than President Holland who didn't attack Assad, he jumped on it and will help bomb the poor guys fighting for our freedom...
You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ?
Yes, them, their radical Christian branch the 'Red Cross' the Palestinian allies the 'Red Crescent' and their secret french masters: Médecins Sans Frontières.
Hilariously, they've occasionally been accused of being stooges of the very guys they're accusing of using Chemical Weapons.
Also, just, FYI, yes, actual chemical munitions have been recovered that were used in Syria, but, hey, why let reality get in the way, Comrade?
I gave up on believing Russians since about Mid Ukraine.
You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ? You know that, not even once, Assad was proven guilty of chemical use in the ghouta ? And the Russian are asking right now for an investigation ? Why not giving him time to be proven guilty or not ?
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof.
What is even more sad, is my own president is like Dakka: too happy to show he is stronger than President Holland who didn't attack Assad, he jumped on it and will help bomb the poor guys fighting for our freedom...
The entire of Syria is one giant gak fest.
The truth of anything happening there is a long time lost.
Confirming anything that did or did not happen is borderline impossible.
Thefe so so many intrests, and angles... Facts are just lies.
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof..
Well, usually because the guys caught on film doing something bad were wearing Russian Uniforms, driving Russian armored vehicles, and collecting Russian paychecks while on 'vacation' from the Russian army. And then we have posters who watch the Russian equivalent of Fox News and believe every word of it. Even in total defiance of things like actual evidence.
I gave up on believing Russians since about Mid Ukraine.
You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ? You know that, not even once, Assad was proven guilty of chemical use in the ghouta ? And the Russian are asking right now for an investigation ? Why not giving him time to be proven guilty or not ?
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof.
What is even more sad, is my own president is like Dakka: too happy to show he is stronger than President Holland who didn't attack Assad, he jumped on it and will help bomb the poor guys fighting for our freedom...
The entire of Syria is one giant gak fest.
The truth of anything happening there is a long time lost.
Confirming anything that did or did not happen is borderline impossible.
Thefe so so many intrests, and angles... Facts are just lies.
it also doesnt help that obfuscation of the truth is heavily sought by all involved and the undermining of any idea of objective reality is a key concept of Russia's maskirovka defense strategy.
You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ?
Yes, them, their radical Christian branch the 'Red Cross' the Palestinian allies the 'Red Crescent' and their secret french masters: Médecins Sans Frontières.
Hilariously, they've occasionally been accused of being stooges of the very guys they're accusing of using Chemical Weapons.
Also, just, FYI, yes, actual chemical munitions have been recovered that were used in Syria, but, hey, why let reality get in the way, Comrade?
Several chemical attacks were made in syria, in deed. I don't recall one being being made by Assad, with proofs and all.
They are nothing like the red cross. They are a post war organization, that replaced sanitary service in...terrorist held areas and it has been proven several time, with witnesses and pictures that they work with the terrorists.
Like you know, when they saved people from sarin gaz without any kind of protection, but hey, why let reality get in the way ?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Red croissant agents were on the area, and found nothing. I can't be the only one wanting proofs ! So what, they are russian agents, too ? Come on, can't you all just be rationnal for one minute ?
Every time the russians are involved in something, you loose your mind. I am being accused of believing propaganda because I want just one little proof...
godardc wrote: I don't recall one being being made by Assad, with proofs and all.
The attack on Khan Shaykhun left behind fragments of a KhAB-250. That's not something terrorists are likely to have the means to deploy, since you can't just blow it up on the ground and have it work. You do have to actually drop it from a plane to mix the binary agents. Damascus admitted to launching the airstrike on Khan Sheikhoun with Su-22 fighter-bombers. So, we have planes that could carry this bomb conducting airstrikes at the right time in the right place.
They are a post war organization, that replaced sanitary service in...terrorist held areas and it has been proven several time, with witnesses and pictures that they work with the terrorists.
Generally if you're working in an area 'held' by someone you do have to work with them. That does not mean you actually 'are' them, however. You're confusing 'terrorist' with 'collaborator'.
Like you know, when they saved people from sarin gaz without any kind of protection:
I can't say I've either seen nor heard of this incident, but frankly after a sarin drop, you're actually administering to people who've received low doses, since if you're exposed to a lethal dose, you won't live long enough to get to a hospital. (lethal in 1-10 mins after direct inhalation.)
If I remember right the contamination of the area from Sarin lasts something like 30 min. But I may be wrong.
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof..
Well, usually because the guys caught on film doing something bad were wearing Russian Uniforms, driving Russian armored vehicles, and collecting Russian paychecks while on 'vacation' from the Russian army. And then we have posters who watch the Russian equivalent of Fox News and believe every word of it. Even in total defiance of things like actual evidence.
godardc wrote: You know that the white helmet are a terrorist organization, don't you ? You know that, not even once, Assad was proven guilty of chemical use in the ghouta ? And the Russian are asking right now for an investigation ? Why not giving him time to be proven guilty or not ?
There is something strange here on Dakka: everytime something bad happens, it is the Russians. Instead of better and more likely conclusions, like the terrorists that are loosing the war used their last weapons, no, people jump to strange conclusions, with no proof.
What is even more sad, is my own president is like Dakka: too happy to show he is stronger than President Holland who didn't attack Assad, he jumped on it and will help bomb the poor guys fighting for our freedom...
Investigation? It is so obvious that the Assad regime has committed innumerable war crimes that even if (and its very likely not) this is false you would have a justification to intervene a thousand times over. Your irrational conclusion that all who oppose Assad are somehow terrorists is even more depressing. If the guys fighting for our 'freedom' are doing so by carpet bombing civilians and hospitals I would seriously consider if that would be freedom worth fighting for
Automatically Appended Next Post: I don't remember who said it, but after the latest chemical attack an expert said what boiled down to this. If its chlorine based it could be rebels, if its nerve gas its Assad.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Your irrational conclusion that all who oppose Assad are somehow terrorists is even more depressing.
I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
BaronIveagh wrote: I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
Yeah, tragically the PKK could have just gone the way of the FARC or IRA if Erdogan wasn't so power hungry. The last three year is firmly on him.
Investigation? It is so obvious that the Assad regime has committed innumerable war crimes that even if (and its very likely not) this is false you would have a justification to intervene a thousand times over. Your irrational conclusion that all who oppose Assad are somehow terrorists is even more depressing. If the guys fighting for our 'freedom' are doing so by carpet bombing civilians and hospitals I would seriously consider if that would be freedom worth fighting for
Yes, an UN investigation, they asked, and we refused. Pretty surprising, for countries looking for the truth, isn't it ? Maybe our bombing are going to destroy the proofs that the rebels did it, who knows ?
If you don't want to be free, that your business. I am not even surprised by that coming from you. People, I mean, A LOT of people, died for us to be free today. If you lived during the Revolution, you wouldn't even have fought for freedom, you would have just asked people to remain slaves, because slavery is better than bloodshed, wouldn't you ?
You think after almost a decade of fighting, the democrats that we never helped, that we gave up so many years ago, are still here, waiting for us ? No, they died, they fled, or they find people who listened to them, that helped them: the extremist islamists, and they joined them. Even the "moderate" that obama trained and armed joined them !
BaronIveagh wrote: I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
Yeah, tragically the PKK could have just gone the way of the FARC or IRA if Erdogan wasn't so power hungry. The last three year is firmly on him.
Yeah, poor kurds, I hope that, in the end, everything will be ok for them and that they, at last, get their country. It's a tragedy, they did so much for crushing isis, and we let them to die
Investigation? It is so obvious that the Assad regime has committed innumerable war crimes that even if (and its very likely not) this is false you would have a justification to intervene a thousand times over. Your irrational conclusion that all who oppose Assad are somehow terrorists is even more depressing. If the guys fighting for our 'freedom' are doing so by carpet bombing civilians and hospitals I would seriously consider if that would be freedom worth fighting for
Yes, an UN investigation, they asked, and we refused. Pretty surprising, for countries looking for the truth, isn't it ? Maybe our bombing are going to destroy the proofs that the rebels did it, who knows ?
If you don't want to be free, that your business. I am not even surprised by that coming from you. People, I mean, A LOT of people, died for us to be free today.
If you lived during the Revolution, you wouldn't even have fought for freedom, you would have just asked people to remain slaves, because slavery is better than bloodshed, wouldn't you ?
You think after almost a decade of fighting, the democrats that we never helped, that we gave up so many years ago, are still here, waiting for us ? No, they died, they fled, or they find people who listened to them, that helped them: the extremist islamists, and they joined them. Even the "moderate" that obama trained and armed joined them !
Actually we didn't refuse, the Russians did. The US proposed an OPCW (a neutral organisation) investigation in which the OPCW can point out the perpetrator. Russia wanted an OPCW investigation in which the Security Council could assign the blame, you know the one where Russia can veto anything they don't like as a conclusion? Wow, so convenient! Whatever happened to that UN Security Council MH17 investigation? Oh yeah, Russia killed that one too!
I don't know, I'd like to be free, but I wouldn't like being carpet bombed and murdered to achieve said 'freedom'. Assad is the slaver, people protested for more democracy and he bombed them. When Assad faced the moment he might lose control over his 'slaves' he decided he'd rather murder and torture every last one of them.
Yeah all the moderates died, you know why? Because your 'freedom' fighters started off murdering the moderates before they went after the more radical elements. While Western backed Kurds fought and died to try and defeat IS, Assad had an uneasy alliance with IS for years. Assad didn't beat IS, he just rolled in once the Kurds and the US air campaign had done the heavy lifting.
BaronIveagh wrote: I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
Yeah, tragically the PKK could have just gone the way of the FARC or IRA if Erdogan wasn't so power hungry. The last three year is firmly on him.
Yeah, poor kurds, I hope that, in the end, everything will be ok for them and that they, at last, get their country. It's a tragedy, they did so much for crushing isis, and we let them to die
There was never much hope for the Kurds, everybody in the region hates them. This whole Erdogan attacking the Kurds thing that going on started off as a cynical but successful attempt by Erdogan to get more votes to later crown himself emperor for life.
Disciple of Fate wrote: don't remember who said it, but after the latest chemical attack an expert said what boiled down to this. If its chlorine based it could be rebels, if its nerve gas its Assad.
Assad's nerve agent stockpiles were dismantled, it was part of the agreement Obama brokered. Since then Assad has used chlorine.
This has caused a few problems, because its much harder now to establish Assad was behind a chemical attack. It's also much harder to target any facilities making this possible, because chlorine is going to be in any industrial area.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
There are active terror groups within the Kurds, and it isn't like those groups are wholly seperate. There is seperation from more conventional Kurdish forces, but the line is constantly shifting.
That doesn't mean the Kurds are bad or their cause unjust, but it does mean there's some grounds to calling at least some of the seperatists terrorists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Personally on the average suffering scale I believe chemical attacks > artillery/bombs, though that depends on the chemical obviously. The thing is some/most victims of explosions die horrid deaths, vs gas where they all do. As for the rest, well I did say you have somewhat of a point--I didn't mean to disregard the argument but rather comment on the logic of chemical attacks being considered worse than generic bomb ones. At the end of the day it's just about where global society has deemed these things fall on the acceptability scale, which as always is one part logic one part history and one part emotion.
Yeah, I'm not sure there's much value in debating the fine details of how much suffering there is in one attack against another.
Thing is, as you say history and emotion play in to this. Society tends to produce taboos, things that we will not do, and they have a powerful emotional impact on people. These taboos will often continue long after the circumstances that caused them faded away, breaches of them will still shock people, even though when prompted they can struggle to explain why it is still a taboo.
BaronIveagh wrote: I find how easily that we call people like the Kurds 'terrorists' just because a psychopath like Erdogan thinks so depressing. It's almost like the word has lost all meaning anymore.
There are active terror groups within the Kurds, and it isn't like those groups are wholly seperate. There is seperation from more conventional Kurdish forces, but the line is constantly shifting.
That doesn't mean the Kurds are bad or their cause unjust, but it does mean there's some grounds to calling at least some of the seperatists terrorists.
I think the terrorist label was applied much more easily in the 2000's. The PKK went into an uneasy truce with the Turkish government that actually worked until 2015. When the Turkish Kurds started getting more politically involved with a new party. Of course this would damage Erdogan's chances in the upcoming election to expand his authoritarian might. So he pushed the PKK back into conflict to gain votes and start arresting the new 'Kurdish' party for thought crimes. Erdogan engineered the PKK's return to terrorism just so he could crown himself emperor down the line. I think that labelling the Kurds as terrorists considering the circumstances in Turkey nowadays is quite a bit unfair. Yeah as a definition its correct, but it carries heavy negative undertones that people will pick up on after events like 9/11 without knowing the full story
Reports are in that blood and urine samples taken by hospitals and US agents on the ground have tested positive for both an 'unnamed nerve agent' and chlorine.
OPCW and Turkey have both confirmed that chemical byproducts of sarin undergoing decomposition have been found on victims and in autopsies on victims.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think the terrorist label was applied much more easily in the 2000's. The PKK went into an uneasy truce with the Turkish government that actually worked until 2015. When the Turkish Kurds started getting more politically involved with a new party. Of course this would damage Erdogan's chances in the upcoming election to expand his authoritarian might. So he pushed the PKK back into conflict to gain votes and start arresting the new 'Kurdish' party for thought crimes. Erdogan engineered the PKK's return to terrorism just so he could crown himself emperor down the line. I think that labelling the Kurds as terrorists considering the circumstances in Turkey nowadays is quite a bit unfair. Yeah as a definition its correct, but it carries heavy negative undertones that people will pick up on after events like 9/11 without knowing the full story
Agreed on every point. I'm just saying its hard to dispute the terrorist label, because it isn't untrue for some parts of the Kurdish seperatists. Which does mean some people like Erdogan use it without context, and it becomes hard to completely dispute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, welcome to the new Assad. (and you don't stockpile sarin, since it's lifespan can be measured in just weeks)
Interesting, thanks. It must have been the facilities that were dismantled in 2013.
So, the airstrikes were made last night. 3 targets hit.
What now ? Still no real and strong Russian reaction, fortunately.
I don't really understand why hitting 3 so called storage and chemical research facilities, I mean what did this improve ? How has it made our position better ?
We just got Putin angree for no gain (because, as everyone know, there are no chemical facilities in Syria since 2013, so I don't know what they really stiked).
Meanwhile RT's saying that the Russian MoD's considering outfitting the Syrians with air defence systems, and the Russian/ Syria side is already playing up all the civilian casualties (ignoring all those dead civilians that Assad's created over the past years).
Hopefully we'll see the end of Assad soon, and then the Russians will reign back all their faux pas on the international stage. Though probably not, in part due to the later, and it'll just escalate. Given that all the other tactics in ousting Assad have failed so far (yes, including funding the opposition), it looks like we're edging closer to those UN resolutions which the Russians repeated vetoed years ago going ahead (just with the issue that Russia now has troops in the country). Where it must be restated, that the only reason that Assad's still in power and capable of continuing his terror campaign is due to the Russians backing him. ...Which leads to anyone who supports their causing knowing that he's killing his own people to me in a questionable state ("Oh he's a stabilising factor". ...The reason there's a war there in the first place is from him gunning down protesters and spreading insurrection by preemptively targeting civilians he didn't like)
Wyrmalla wrote: Meanwhile RT's saying that the Russian MoD's considering outfitting the Syrians with air defence systems, and the Russian/ Syria side is already playing up all the civilian casualties (ignoring all those dead civilians that Assad's created over the past years).
Hopefully we'll see the end of Assad soon, and then the Russians will reign back all their faux pas on the international stage. Though probably not, in part due to the later, and it'll just escalate. Given that all the other tactics in ousting Assad have failed so far (yes, including funding the opposition), it looks like we're edging closer to those UN resolutions which the Russians repeated vetoed years ago going ahead (just with the issue that Russia now has troops in the country). Where it must be restated, that the only reason that Assad's still in power and capable of continuing his terror campaign is due to the Russians backing him. ...Which leads to anyone who supports their causing knowing that he's killing his own people to me in a questionable state ("Oh he's a stabilising factor". ...The reason there's a war there in the first place is from him gunning down protesters and spreading insurrection by preemptively targeting civilians he didn't like)
I honestly think its too late to see the end of Assad. He is firmly back in control and the few rebels that are left are being driven back into a shrinking area. Thanks to empy Erdogan the Kurds might be willing to fall in with Assad just to try and stop Turkey from murdering them.
Last nights airstrikes just demonstrate the West's heart isn't in it. Because next time its going to be for realsies! Which is the 4th or 5th time by now. Sadly its hard to foresee a future where the murdering feth isn't in control until he croaks at this rate.
godardc wrote: So, the airstrikes were made last night. 3 targets hit.
What now ? Still no real and strong Russian reaction, fortunately.
I don't really understand why hitting 3 so called storage and chemical research facilities, I mean what did this improve ? How has it made our position better ?
We just got Putin angree for no gain (because, as everyone know, there are no chemical facilities in Syria since 2013, so I don't know what they really stiked).
Because the Syrian government 100% destroyed all chemical plants and made no attempt to replace them... of course they did. Please do tell me, if all chemical weapons were destroyed and never replaced, where did the ones come from in the recent attacks?
I see three possible answers to this:
1) Syria is lieing.
2) The weapons came from elsewhere
3) The attack didn’t happen.
Given the overwhelming amount of evidence of an attack 3 must be wrong. 2 leaves the possibility it was not the Syrian government, but if another force can get the weapons then they can.
What we gained is basically saying “we will destroy any chemical plants. Stop using chemical weapons”.
godardc wrote: So, the airstrikes were made last night. 3 targets hit.
What now ? Still no real and strong Russian reaction, fortunately.
I don't really understand why hitting 3 so called storage and chemical research facilities, I mean what did this improve ? How has it made our position better ?
We just got Putin angree for no gain (because, as everyone know, there are no chemical facilities in Syria since 2013, so I don't know what they really stiked).
Fortunately it was a carefully orchestrated "I'm not touching you" dance.
godardc wrote: So, the airstrikes were made last night. 3 targets hit.
What now ? Still no real and strong Russian reaction, fortunately.
I don't really understand why hitting 3 so called storage and chemical research facilities, I mean what did this improve ? How has it made our position better ?
We just got Putin angree for no gain (because, as everyone know, there are no chemical facilities in Syria since 2013, so I don't know what they really stiked).
Fortunately it was a carefully orchestrated "I'm not touching you" dance.
What we gained is basically saying “we will destroy any chemical plants. Stop using chemical weapons”.
Without provinding any rationale for why the Syrian government would order the use of chemical weapons when it's winning the war.
Here's a crazy theory. Because Assad is a mad man, whose strings are being pulled by a despot who just wants to keep tweaking the noses of the international community?
Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.
godardc wrote: So, the airstrikes were made last night. 3 targets hit.
What now ? Still no real and strong Russian reaction, fortunately.
I don't really understand why hitting 3 so called storage and chemical research facilities, I mean what did this improve ? How has it made our position better ?
We just got Putin angree for no gain (because, as everyone know, there are no chemical facilities in Syria since 2013, so I don't know what they really stiked).
Fortunately it was a carefully orchestrated "I'm not touching you" dance.
What we gained is basically saying “we will destroy any chemical plants. Stop using chemical weapons”.
Without provinding any rationale for why the Syrian government would order the use of chemical weapons when it's winning the war.
Why does it matter why they used them? The fact is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Syrian government using chemical weapons time and again against its own people and being willing to do it again. The why is not important. Only Russia and Syria claim anything else, and even they have bizarrely non consitant stories. One moment nothing ever happened, the next it was the rebels using the weapons, the next it is all staged by the US and UK. The why is not really relevant.
djones520 wrote: Here's a crazy theory. Because Assad is a mad man, whose strings are being pulled by a despot who just wants to keep tweaking the noses of the international community?
That is, indeedt, a crazy theory. States don't "work" that way, as it were.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.
Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.
Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.
No they aren't necessary to win. But they sure are useful in cracking tough pockets of rebel resistance who have virtually no NBC protection equipment.
Also they aren't that much more risky for Assad, he has used them in some capacity at least 5+ times since 2011. It has become abundantly clear that there is no motivator not to use them, because no real retaliation is forthcoming.
The logic that using chemical weapons is "desperate" is just patently false. He has been carpet bombing civilians in droves, because he can, not because the margin of victory is so small. Assad doesn't use them because he is at risk of losing, he uses them because he's virtually guaranteed not to lose. Every step he has taken since shooting protesters has been a line crossed and a highly useless risk to take, yet he has done so because he knows the risk is tiny compared to the advantage.
djones520 wrote: Here's a crazy theory. Because Assad is a mad man, whose strings are being pulled by a despot who just wants to keep tweaking the noses of the international community?
That is, indeedt, a crazy theory. States don't "work" that way, as it were.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its perfectly rational why Assad uses chemical weapons. He knows the international response will be mediocre at best and cracking the tougher parts of rebel resistance outweighs the cost of taking a few bombs. Yes Assad is winning, but he wants to have won. Every second the war drags on is taking on unneeded risk for him.
Chemical weapons are not necessary to win, and are complained about significantly more than conventional weapons. They're all-around riskier. The margin of victory is not so low that the Syrian government has to resort to desperate measures. Like, what, would they be testing how much they can get away with? The problem with that is that, well, once you've crossed the line you don't necessarily have control of the ensuing events. That seems like a highly useless risk to take.
So your suggestion otherwise? Whose responsible? I mean, if Assad using them is so crazy, there has to be a better idea out there right? So please enlighten us.
Evidences ? Where are they ? Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.
Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.
You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?! Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.
FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.
godardc wrote: Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.
Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.
You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.
FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.
WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.
According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.
More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.
Emphasis mine.
Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,
djones520 wrote: So your suggestion otherwise? Whose responsible? I mean, if Assad using them is so crazy, there has to be a better idea out there right? So please enlighten us.
The part I call crazy is not the claim that a state would use gas, it's the suggestion that the Syrian government is the incarnation of The Mad Beast Risen From the Depths, Assad and has no rational explanation for its actions. I haven't seen any actual investigation or evidence for the Syrian government being responsible for at least the latest gas attack. All I have seen is evidence that people have been poisoned.
So if not the Syrian military, then who? It could've been Jaysh al-Islam who gassed civilians in an attempt to get the US to intervene on their behalf or just on general principle as they retreated because they're a bunch of death cultists. It could've been a conventional shell that hit a stockpile of stolen gas. That's just two obvious alternatives.
godardc wrote: Evidences ? Where are they ? Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.
Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.
You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?! Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.
FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.
WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.
According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.
More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.
Emphasis mine.
Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,
So, you agree with me we do not know who did the attack ? The WHO didn't say it is the president Assad, they don't know .
godardc wrote: Evidences ? Where are they ?
Show them, please, do it. I'll wait.
Experts and doctors were on the areas, they found nothing.
You know, I am not paid by the Russians, I love the USA. I have nothing to gain by telling this. If I do it, it is because I am not convinced by my own country nor by my allies I just think rationally, and I don't understand why you strive to keep backing them. You don't have proofs, they even told us that it was "probably the Syrian governement" I mean WTF how can one say "probably" and bomb them the day after ?!
Do you think in 1 or 2 days, they made a good investigation ? This is all what the russians wanted, an investigation. And you know what ? If the investigation would have showed the President Assad did it, I would have acknoewledged it and backer strikes.
FYI, they striked some facilities that had been investigated last year, and were deemed "clear" without any gas or chemicals. That is what you support.
WHO is deeply alarmed by reports of the suspected use of toxic chemicals in Douma city, East Ghouta.
According to reports from Health Cluster partners, during the shelling of Douma on Saturday, an estimated 500 patients presented to health facilities exhibiting signs and symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals. In particular, there were signs of severe irritation of mucous membranes, respiratory failure and disruption to central nervous systems of those exposed.
More than 70 people sheltering in basements have reportedly died, with 43 of those deaths related to symptoms consistent with exposure to highly toxic chemicals. Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks.
Emphasis mine.
Again, both sides wanted an investigation. The Russian investigation was vetoed because it basically boiled down to Russia being able to get the outcome it desires through Security Council veto,
So, you agree with me we do not know who did the attack ? The WHO didn't say it is the president Assad, they don't know .
You said doctors and experts found nothing, which is false. But yes, the WHO as a health organisation is not going to assign blame. Based on past events and capabilities of the parties involved, Assad is the obvious suspect beyond going into far-fetched explanations. Blame is never going to be assigned officially, because Russia would kill any chance to do so. Yet it is almost inevitable that the OPCW will point to Assad, as this is on a scale no rebel group is capable off.
It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing. The WHO was there, apparently, and they said there was something. But you see, I am not "thickheaded', and so I give you that. Rebels are totally able to do it. Chemicals attacks are easy to do, especially after having being at war for years. They may have facilities, experts, and money. ISIS had a whole state ! A whole country, with taxes, ministers, everything. But for I don't know what reason, you want it to be the president, and you don't even try to discuss. Your only excuse is that Assad did it because he is mad ? Serously ? Is that all you could fin ? Do you really believe this ?
So the guy who's been using chemical weapons against his own people for seven years, suddenly didn't do it this time as now the West somehow has something to gain? Right, so we're ignoring that the West's had the same precedent for military intervention as they've had with all the previous attacks. It just so happens that the current political situation has led to some countries no longer caring what the Russians think.
The war started due to Assad attacking his own people. It escalated from his side liberally bombing civilian targets. The West then attempted to intervene over these chemical attacks through the UN, but the Russians vetoed that - before sending their own troops in to back Assad.
Assad has the Russians overtly backing him. With them on his side the intent is for the West to be afraid of making any moves against him (i.e. what they've been asking for for years). Given that Russians setting a precedent that you can get away with all sorts of illegal crap on the international stage, and that any intervention will now be met by the Russians, there's no reason for Assad not to continue using chemical weapons. His government has already dug themselves a hole, though nobody can do anything about that as it'd result in WWIII.
When its common knowledge that you're doing something illegal and getting away with it, as have you gotten away with it for seven years, UN oversight isn't going to make you stop. ...Or this can turn into yet another "Russia" thread where posters debate that the sky's blue today (odd that debating the truth's a thing in those threads; almost like spreading disinformation is one of the Russian government's intentions - which people just fall into).
(It'd be more productive not to address people arguing that the sky's not blue and detracting from the actual conversation, though, well, this is the internet)
So I have the WHO and you have whoever you say you have? Ok then.
Chemical attacks are not easy, especially for the side that is losing and being cornered. IS had the ability, but so far the chemical attacks made by potential rebel forces have almost always used Syrian regime captured stocks. If it was that easy half the terrorist organisations in the world would be using them.
Also I didn't call Assad mad. On the contrary, I think he has a very rational approach, incredibly murderous and bloody, but rational to him anyway. Painting him as a madman detracts from the calculated cruelty he employs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Or this can turn into yet another "Russia" thread where posters debate that the sky's blue today (odd that debating the truth's a thing in those threads; almost like spreading disinformation is one of the Russian government's intentions - which people just fall into).
(It'd be more productive not to address people arguing that the sky's not blue and detracting from the actual conversation, though, well, this is the internet)
Another? Please this thread was doing the "where is your proof, you can't proof rebels did not do it" long before any Russia thread was just a fragment being formed in the mind of the poster.
If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.
Ketara wrote: If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.
It was a medicine factory, didn't you hear? Next time I bet its going to be an orphaned puppy shelter.
Riddle me this then. How is it that a chemical attack takes place and within days we strike three sites that cover the main Syrian production facilities?
We didn’t just spot stuff moving around the day after the attack. Our governments clearly know what’s being made and where but didn’t have a good reason to simply lob missiles into Syria until this week. As soon as an attack occurred we had the justification and knew exactly where to target them.
I watched some of the UN conference today and Russia makes me want to puke. They sit there and have the audacity to talk about how they support legitimate governments against terror, and how this chemical attack has no evidence and taking a ‘won’t anyone think of the civilians’ attitude. Russia veto investigation into chemical weapons and prevent action against Syria, the war continues as long as it does because they’ve propped up Assad for so long. The blood is all on their hands. It’s just more blatant lies and propaganda behind a barely concealed smirk as with the Salisbury poisoning which again involves mysteriously covert chemical weapons.
Honestly I think the Russian tactic is just to lie and lie and make the most outrageous counter accusations until you can’t take it any more and just want put your fingers in your ears and scream until you can’t hear the endless obnoxious blather. Russians must choose to believe all this crap on TV just to have a quiet life.
It'll be interesting to see what eventually becomes of the "Russia problem". If they keep acting like they do for another twenty years, or something happens to finally put an end to their ridiculousness. Given the state of affairs in the rest of the world right now with similar regimes, its difficult to see a way out other than pushing a reset switch on their governments. It'd be a sad state of affairs if in twenty years they're still at it, though just how that would effect a society is a bit chilling. The world is hardly the brighter place that we thought it'd be like at the end of the Cold War. Victim blaming seems to be the political language of the time.
Wyrmalla wrote: It'll be interesting to see what eventually becomes of the "Russia problem". If they keep acting like they do for another twenty years, or something happens to finally put an end to their ridiculousness. Given the state of affairs in the rest of the world right now with similar regimes, its difficult to see a way out other than pushing a reset switch on their governments. It'd be a sad state of affairs if in twenty years they're still at it, though just how that would effect a society is a bit chilling. The world is hardly the brighter place that we thought it'd be like at the end of the Cold War. Victim blaming seems to be the political language of the time.
Is there a Putin #2 in the ranks to replace him when he finally croaks?
Realistically Putin will appoint a successor that will likely carry on in the same vein. The Russians don't seem to see the need for large scale shake ups. The behaviour is likely to continue, as with the increasing power of China, Russia will become ever more impotent in its Central Asian backyard. Supporting places like Syria is the only way Russia can feel its still the big dog.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Is there a Putin #2 in the ranks to replace him when he finally croaks?
Not really. Its the conundrum of Putin's power. He needs a successor. But having one too early might mean he loses power and eventually gets replaced before he wants to by that successor. When he decides its time for his last term a successor will likely come out of the woodwork.
godardc wrote: It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing.
The WHO was there, apparently, and they said there was something. But you see, I am not "thickheaded', and so I give you that.
Rebels are totally able to do it. Chemicals attacks are easy to do, especially after having being at war for years. They may have facilities, experts, and money. ISIS had a whole state ! A whole country, with taxes, ministers, everything.
But for I don't know what reason, you want it to be the president, and you don't even try to discuss. Your only excuse is that Assad did it because he is mad ? Serously ? Is that all you could fin ? Do you really believe this ?
I can give you a very good reason: FIBUA is a BITCH. We're talking about a bombed out city. Rather than lose men and material that he'd need to stay in power and not have his government collapse again instantly he needs as many soldiers alive at the end of this as possible. Chemical weapons provide him with a way to eliminate dug in defenders without having to go house to house, room to room
Nerve agents are not 'easy to do'. Sarin, in particular, is hard. Iraq, with the complete resources of an entire country at the time, produced very low grade sarin, which decayed VERY rapidly due to the level of impurities present. So the idea of a bunch of rebels producing it is a bit on the laughable side. Chlorine, sure. Phosgene, maybe. but both of these have easily acquired precursors and require very little work to weaponize. Aum Shinrikyo tried and produced a VERY small amount of highly impure sarin, killing 12 people total in an enclosed area in the Tokyo subway attacks.
And you still have no explained away the old soviet era chemical weapon bomb fragments they keep finding. Or are you ignoring that hard and hope it goes away? KhAB-250 do not just 'appear' at the site of chemical weapon attacks, and the way they work precludes the Syrians just laying it on the ground and detonating it.
As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ? And our governments, one day after, knew who dit it, and where, without any investigation ?
And they knew all that without trying to prevent it ?
Sure thing, guys, sure thing.
The weak mind enjoys the easy lie, the strong one looks for the hard truth. One day, you will wake up, and I'll be there, still searching for the truth
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: If Assad had no chemical weapon storage sites or manufactories loaded with chemical weaponry, then I'm mildly curious what we just went to considerable expense to bomb. I'm reasonably certain they weren't candy floss stalls and marine life parks.
Because you don't have all the answers doesn't mean you have to invent a lie or to believe one. I don't know why, maybe to cover up, to destroy the proofs that it wasn't the president Assad, maybe to lure the media and avoiding the people to get angry to them ( I know TRUMP and macron are in a bad position right now, May I don't know).
Maybe to test the Russians.
See, tens of potential explanations !
Yes. Aliens is also a potential explanation. As are operatives of the lost city of Atlantis. Both are about as likely as the British, American, and French governments conspiring to destroy a bunch of warehouses that apparently hold mysterious proof that the murderous dictator well known for slaughtering his own people with inhumane weapons did not slaughter his own people inhumanely in one specific instance. Not to mention that it still wouldn't explain where these chemical weapons which hit the civilians actually came from. A conspiracy theory does not. valid theory make.
godardc wrote: As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ? And our governments, one day after, knew who dit it, and where, without any investigation ?
And they knew all that without trying to prevent it ?
Sure thing, guys, sure thing.
The weak mind enjoys the easy lie, the strong one looks for the hard truth. One day, you will wake up, and I'll be there, still searching for the truth
!
Observes godardc's utter and total failure to read my post. I did mention Aum Shinrikyo and while 12-13 people were killed, and 54 people were injured,980 have come forward after exposure, the total number of people actually exposed is unknown, and may be as high as 6000. That's total possible exposure, though..
The incredibly low level of deaths in the Aum Shinrikyo incident compared to the very, very high level of lethality that sarin has shows how small the amount they successfully produced was, and how debased it was. With access to modern medical and chemical equipment, and not working in a blown out shell of a country that barely qualified as 'modern' before it got the gak blown out of it.
It's the old 'lone madman in his shack producing enriched weapons-grade uranium' again.
godardc I'm not even sure where to begin, your level of ignorance on this subject appears to be so massive.
That the same opposing arguments from the Failed Assassination of a Former Russian Spy thread are making their over here is perhaps an indication of just how played out they are. I'd imagine by this point someone's made some sort of quick reference sheet on how to retort them given how often they come up and people go to the effort of tearing them apart (though the contents of any responses seem to go over the heads of those making them. Perhaps due to another far fetched argument being just as quickly brought out as one is responded to, or even beforehand when speaking to someone else).
It is obvious that the alleged chemical attack not a real reason for missile strike (just an excuse) and in general the "tyranny of the Assad" is not the reason for the aggressive acts against Syria. This is part of the bigger picture. A big picture shows that US for some reason leaves the Middle East, but at the same time it leaves chaos behind, so that other powers do not get influence there.
godardc wrote: It is not false, you have your sources, I have mine. Somebody is lying, I don't know who, I can't say who. It is not false. They were there, and they said there was nothing.
Provide them then. Link to them. My guess is that either they don’t exist or they are RT/Sputnik/some other Russian owned “news” organisation with all the reputability of a 5 year old with a face covered in chocolate.
godardc wrote: As you seem to be lacking even the most basic memory, let's remind you some events:
1995, sarin attack, Japan, anyone ?
A bunch of terrorists made sarin, in a industrialized country (laws, police, etc...) and managed to use it, wounding more than five thousands.
But somehow, thousands of terrorists in a ruined country with noone to stop them, and easier access to it (defector, old gov. stocks, money, internet..) couldn't ?
Ah yes Japan, where a frankly massive and well funded doomsday cult managed to make some gas in peacetime in an industrialized nation.
Meanwhile a few hundred terrorists in a surrounded, besieged and bombed residential area have the ability to produce higher quality stuff, because the internet exist? I guess they must have used Amazon's next day delivery to have an industrial lab parachuted into their territory complete with experts and materials. Shame they only managed to hit themselves after going through all that trouble right?
I like how your version has them competent enough to do all that, but then not know how to aim it at someone that's not themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: That the same opposing arguments from the Failed Assassination of a Former Russian Spy thread are making their over here is perhaps an indication of just how played out they are. I'd imagine by this point someone's made some sort of quick reference sheet on how to retort them given how often they come up and people go to the effort of tearing them apart (though the contents of any responses seem to go over the heads of those making them. Perhaps due to another far fetched argument being just as quickly brought out as one is responded to, or even beforehand when speaking to someone else).
About a year ago I made the mistake of debating someone on Syria. Then I found out how much effort is actually put into shifting the blame onto the rebels and the US and the vast amount of fake data produced to back that up. It literally is a copy paste job to some people, because there are sites that do counter every argument with wild explanations. Not just a few, but dozens that twist the truth just a little to seem genuine or sow doubt, down to just the crazy ones. They all do use sources we would use to seem credible, but looking deeper its always taken out of context.
Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?
We still need to sort out the Kurdish problem, reassure Israel, and fix the refugee problem. Heads need to be bashed together around the conference table and a deal thrashed out.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well the Syrian government shows us what they want us to see, no surprise there. There is no diplomatic solution available, because as you say, short of a major intervention Assad holds all the cards. Why would he go for the diplomacy option when he can just destroy his enemies?
We still need to sort out the Kurdish problem, reassure Israel, and fix the refugee problem. Heads need to be bashed together around the conference table and a deal thrashed out.
At this rate the Kurdish problem is going to sort itself out because Erdogan is going to drive them straight into the arms of Assad. Its not a process we as the West are likely going to get involved in, because we won't be given the option by Putin and Assad.
Israel is pretty much reassured once Assad win's though. Assad and Syria will have been incredibly weakened. Syria today is much less of a threat now then 10 years ago. Hell Israel might even be happy to let it drag out a few more years to suck in Iranian and Hezbollah lives.
As for the refugees. Some will go back, but a good half will never want to go back for good reason. Sending them back is going to be a death sentence for a good deal of them. That can't be solved by a few bureaucrats talking numbers at a conference between the West and Assad/Putin.
Killing Assad doesn't solve anything because the Syrian government isn't a single man. The Assad family is more than Bashar Assad. Too many in the current regime are too heavily invested to let all their efforts just collapse due to the death of one man. They will just find someone else. Most of us say Assad because he is a convenient representation of the Syrian government, but there has always been debate to what extent Assad is really in control of the wider war effort.
The truth is that what the Middle-East needs is an effort akin to that of the USA in Germany post WW2. A complete cultural restructuring from the ground up with a decades long occupation and direct control.
In short, cultural genocide. And nobody has the political willpower or desire to enforce that. Yet without it? Nothing will change short term. Dictators keep rising, fanatical religion drives atrocities, borders change, and anyone with half a brain or shred of morality flees.
NinthMusketeer wrote: For those more informed than me; why isn't just killing Assad an option?
It's generally considered to be against the 'rules' of the great game to assassinate a head of state in peacetime, no matter how bad they are. It sets a dangerous precedent. It's why it's rare for an embassy to be raided, as your embassy in their country would suffer the same effect.
Ketara wrote: The truth is that what the Middle-East needs is an effort akin to that of the USA in Germany post WW2. A complete cultural restructuring from the ground up with a decades long occupation and direct control.
In short, cultural genocide. And nobody has the political willpower or desire to enforce that. Yet without it? Nothing will change short term. Dictators keep rising, fanatical religion drives atrocities, borders change, and anyone with half a brain or shred of morality flees.
Ketara wrote: The truth is that what the Middle-East needs is an effort akin to that of the USA in Germany post WW2. A complete cultural restructuring from the ground up with a decades long occupation and direct control.
In short, cultural genocide. And nobody has the political willpower or desire to enforce that. Yet without it? Nothing will change short term. Dictators keep rising, fanatical religion drives atrocities, borders change, and anyone with half a brain or shred of morality flees.
There's only one man who did cultural genocide in the Middle East, and that was Genghis Khan, and nobody wants to see somebody like him back again
I may get some stick for this, but I believe that Western values of liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law etc etc are superior to anything else on God's earth, and worth defending at all cost.
I also believe and accept that there are people on God's earth who have no interest in our Western values, and we should NEVER try and impose them on these places or people, Afghanistan being a prime example. Democracy, IMO, comes from the ground up, and if they want it there, they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves.
If it's there choice to live in tribal societies, then so be it. It's not for us to tell them how to organise their societies.
Defend ourselves? Yes. Impose? Never.
Part of the problem in the Middle East IMO, is that we're trying to impose our values and systems by a gun barrel or a cruise missile.
NinthMusketeer wrote: For those more informed than me; why isn't just killing Assad an option?
Killing Trump and Hillary will help more. Without Assad regime will be weaker and it will give relief to the terrorists, that they only endure an endless war
Disciple of Fate wrote: Killing Assad doesn't solve anything because the Syrian government isn't a single man. The Assad family is more than Bashar Assad. Too many in the current regime are too heavily invested to let all their efforts just collapse due to the death of one man. They will just find someone else. Most of us say Assad because he is a convenient representation of the Syrian government, but there has always been debate to what extent Assad is really in control of the wider war effort.
Aye, he might well not be in control, at least not every day. Official Syrian news of the President supposedly doing something often seem to come with photoshopped pictures, a more or less fake looking Bashar al-Assad pasted into the scene. He was never there, either because the generals chose to lock him up that day, he feared assassins or it just wasn't important enough to care about.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Killing Assad doesn't solve anything because the Syrian government isn't a single man. The Assad family is more than Bashar Assad. Too many in the current regime are too heavily invested to let all their efforts just collapse due to the death of one man. They will just find someone else. Most of us say Assad because he is a convenient representation of the Syrian government, but there has always been debate to what extent Assad is really in control of the wider war effort.
Aye, he might well not be in control, at least not every day. Official Syrian news of the President supposedly doing something often seem to come with photoshopped pictures, a more or less fake looking Bashar al-Assad pasted into the scene. He was never there, either because the generals chose to lock him up that day, he feared assassins or it just wasn't important enough to care about.
He has some level of control, but take for example say his brother Maher Assad. Maher is/was an important military commander, reportedly a very heavy driver of the violent crackdown on the early protests. Wider family members have all kinds of positions in the army and security forces, and its hard to assess the extent of freedom they have in pursuing their goals.
As to Bashar, its only logical that he tends to stay in his palace. He is very much a symbolic target. The brother I just mentioned, Maher, barely avoided being killed in a bomb blast and I believe a brother in law did actually die in a bomb blast. Assassination is a significant risk.
NinthMusketeer wrote: For those more informed than me; why isn't just killing Assad an option?
Killing Trump and Hillary will help more. Without Assad regime will be weaker and it will give relief to the terrorists, that they only endure an endless war
I know Russia tends to be stuck in the past, so you might not have heard Hillary hasn't been politically relevant since 2016... Otherwise, top notch rant.
Killing Trump and Hillary will help more. Without Assad regime will be weaker and it will give relief to the terrorists, that they only endure an endless war
A swift nuke to both Moscow and Washington DC would solve a lot of problems, but generate a lot more. And Putin seems keen on creating 'endless war' as an instrument of state all over the place.
Also there's this. Macron seems to think he's got Trump convinced to not withdraw US troops from Syria.
I do not understand the position of the Kurds. Do they create a separate state or not? If so, why do not they announce it to get some kind of official protection? Or to agree with Assad on autonomy. I wonder what will happen if Turkey continues the invasion.
Ketara wrote: The truth is that what the Middle-East needs is an effort akin to that of the USA in Germany post WW2. A complete cultural restructuring from the ground up with a decades long occupation and direct control.
In short, cultural genocide. And nobody has the political willpower or desire to enforce that. Yet without it? Nothing will change short term. Dictators keep rising, fanatical religion drives atrocities, borders change, and anyone with half a brain or shred of morality flees.
Hm. No.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ketara wrote: The truth is that what the Middle-East needs is an effort akin to that of the USA in Germany post WW2. A complete cultural restructuring from the ground up with a decades long occupation and direct control.
In short, cultural genocide. And nobody has the political willpower or desire to enforce that. Yet without it? Nothing will change short term. Dictators keep rising, fanatical religion drives atrocities, borders change, and anyone with half a brain or shred of morality flees.
There's only one man who did cultural genocide in the Middle East, and that was Genghis Khan, and nobody wants to see somebody like him back again
I just realised that I wasn't entirely clear in my earlier statement and phrased badly. I'm not advocating that we undertake cultural genocide in the Middle-East. Frankly I'm of the opinion enough blood and money has been sweated in that direction as is.
What I was trying to communicate was that if you would like to make the Middle East more like the West in terms of political stability, equality amongst sexes, etc, than that in turn would need a complete cultural restructuring (and thus occupation and cultural genocide). There's no other short term way of making it happen. Lobbing missiles and aid packages simply doesn't do it, and neither does getting chummy with the local dictator and hoping the soft power spreads.
It took the West a long time to mutate into its current incarnation, and you can't just replicate that in a few decades abroad. Not only that, you have an option that was far less prevalent before, where those of a more liberal or educated mindset have places to flee and try to start again more in line with their mentality; rather than being forced to stay at home and enact change there. The resultant brain drain makes it far more difficult to enact any kind of substantial societal shift.
This is of course, also all dependent upon one subscribing to the idea that we should be exerting cultural domination at the expense of other ones to boot. I tend to be of the opinion we should; albeit with much qualification and reluctance. Such things have gone badly wrong too many times before for it to sit comfortably with me. At the same time though, I look at the level of oppression and violence towards women and minorities specifically, and the population generally across the Middle-East, and would like to see it end.
How to achieve that? I honestly don't know. I've no appetite for a colonial occupation/cultural genocide, but at the same time, things clearly aren't working in the current model. Building a wall around the place is hardly the humane option. There really is no easy answer.
You are correct that what the West is currently trying to do with the Middle East won't make anything better. The thing is, though, that the West is not interested in improving the lives of the many peoples who live there. They just want to use the term "human rights" to justify deposing governments that don't want to work under Western powers. Look at how everyone calling for invasion and the deposing of the Syrian government are entirely uninterested in doing anything about Saudi Arabia murdering their way through Yemen.
The US goal in the Middle East is not at all democracy. What is meant when they say "democracy" is not that, say, the people of Iran should decide for themselves what they should do. What is meant by "democracy" is a system that is subservient to the economic and imperial interests of the US.
There aren't any easy answers but there are some clear starting points. One of these is the cessation of Western manipulation.
Rosebuddy wrote: You are correct that what the West is currently trying to do with the Middle East won't make anything better. The thing is, though, that the West is not interested in improving the lives of the many peoples who live there. They just want to use the term "human rights" to justify deposing governments that don't want to work under Western powers. Look at how everyone calling for invasion and the deposing of the Syrian government are entirely uninterested in doing anything about Saudi Arabia murdering their way through Yemen....
...There aren't any easy answers but there are some clear starting points. One of these is the cessation of Western manipulation.
I think that trying to portray 'the West' as a monomind entity callously manipulating things is somewhat baffling to begin with. Different institutions and people have different aims and goals within different regions of the Middle East. Sometimes even the same people have countervailing goals, and end up having to make contradictory choices.
To take someone like Theresa May as an example straight off; she appears to have fairly strong beliefs about womens rights. But she has to balance that against UK economic interests, which are positioned next to British geopolitical/diplomatic needs, which are in turn sat heavily next to a desire to try and stop any forms of international terrorism which could come home to bite us in the bum domestically.
That's a lot of motivations all sitting uneasily in one lone woman, motivations which will ally on certain issues and clash on others. Sometimes one will win over another, another time it will reverse according to priority. And that's a single person! When you replicate that across the political spectrum of the entire Western world, you end up with a clashing incoherent mess of goals and objectives.
So talking about how 'the West' needs to stop meddling, as if it's just one person with one unifying aim, simplifies things to the point of being meaningless. Humanitarian charities will keep on trying to provide aid regardless of what dictators they prop up in the process, countries will keep selling weapons (amongst many other forms of produce) so as to keep their economies running, secret services will carry on trying to eliminate any threats there (because that's what they exist to do), and so on. There are many different people with many different motivations. You can curtail one or two if you're in the relevant position of power, but humans are always going to poke their nose into each others business.
Not sure there's much you can do to stop that outside of a facist autocracy. And I'm not sure that setting up those in the West is the solution to problems in the Middle-East....
There's only one man who did cultural genocide in the Middle East, and that was Genghis Khan, and nobody wants to see somebody like him back again
You mean a genuine visionary who managed to transform a disparate collection of individual tribes into one of the greatest empires ever seen? And who did so through radical reform of the culture and traditions of said people just as much as through military acumen?
Genghis Khan was brutal in warfare when given reason to do so, but his politics was also surprisingly liberal. He deconstructed the rule of the aristocracy in favour of meritocracy where people were given positions based on skill rather than breeding, abolished slavery for mongols, made kidnap and selling of women (previously a legitimate form of acquiring a wife) illegal, declared that any child born of mongol parents was legitimate, ordered the adoption of writing, introduced freedom of religion, tax exemptions for people who provided public services such as religious leaders, undertakers, doctors, teachers, scholars, etc.
Ketara wrote: What I was trying to communicate was that if you would like to make the Middle East more like the West in terms of political stability, equality amongst sexes, etc, than that in turn would need a complete cultural restructuring (and thus occupation and cultural genocide). There's no other short term way of making it happen. Lobbing missiles and aid packages simply doesn't do it, and neither does getting chummy with the local dictator and hoping the soft power spreads.
Not to mention that the West hasn't exactly been too interested in seeing any democracy there, because dictators are so much easier to make deals with. Iran used to be a democracy with quite a lot of freedom for both sexes before certain powers saw fit to install the Shah as supreme ruler instead, for example. Easier to keep the oil money rolling in, though the official reason for the coup was IIRC the fear that they'd go Communist. Instead we got the famous religious uprising against the immoral lifestyle of the ruler. And it's not the only time outsiders have messed up a ME country or other for some short-sighted goal without foreseeing possible later developments.
So in a way it might be best we keep our hands off as much as possible. No one foresaw ISIS rising, mess up a few more places and who knows what will replace the dictator/government there!
Ketara wrote: I think that trying to portray 'the West' as a monomind entity callously manipulating things is somewhat baffling to begin with.
The US, England, France, what have you, are conveniently baked together into the useful shorthand of "the West" because that is often how they like to portray themselves and because while they may have different exact goals in mind the overall approach and impact is the same. Never mind that they work together a fair amount of the time. If you want to really get into the nitty-gritty of it, it's no less simplistic to talk about "the Middle East" than it is to talk about "the West". To accept the former but object to the latter is a case of blindness, either caused by ideology or by the simple fact of being more aware of the differences between and within Western countries than the differences between and within Middle Eastern countries.
Rosebuddy wrote: You are correct that what the West is currently trying to do with the Middle East won't make anything better. The thing is, though, that the West is not interested in improving the lives of the many peoples who live there. They just want to use the term "human rights" to justify deposing governments that don't want to work under Western powers. Look at how everyone calling for invasion and the deposing of the Syrian government are entirely uninterested in doing anything about Saudi Arabia murdering their way through Yemen.
The US goal in the Middle East is not at all democracy. What is meant when they say "democracy" is not that, say, the people of Iran should decide for themselves what they should do. What is meant by "democracy" is a system that is subservient to the economic and imperial interests of the US.
There aren't any easy answers but there are some clear starting points. One of these is the cessation of Western manipulation.
Wrong. You have to look back at decades of terrorism before 9/11 to see how we got here and what the US and western powers have tried to do. There has always been a conflict in American politics, whereas we do not like places like Saudi Arabia and so on, yet at the time were heavily dependent on oil. After decades of high-jackings, bombings, etc etc, the conclusion some came up with was that if the people of the middle east had more of a say in their government (who many times were supported by us or the Russians), then they 'should' be less likely to resort to terrorism. The attacking of westerners was lashing out for the support for the governments they were resisting at home. At least in most places. In some places, it was just state-sponsored terrorism (Libya). They felt if you could remove US support for some of these governments, they would be easier to bring down.
The US wasn't oblivious to this. They were caught between a rock and a hard place. At the time, it was felt that if you could get democracy to flourish at least in one country in the middle east, it would spread to others. Of course, most governments wouldn't go willingly, but the thought was, if the middle east had open, democratic, and secular societies like in the west, there would be a lot less terrorism. Business and trade would benefit as well.
Iraq was part of that great experiment. Iraq happened for a lot of reasons, but make no mistake about it, the pretext of weapons of mass destruction was just to galvanize support, because the idea of overthrowing a government and nation building was too much for most people to handle. That is why policy makers seemed so naive. It was thought that, by removing Saddam, who we felt everyone hated, would allow everyone to hug each other in celebration and begin starting their new government. Instead, the US wasn't prepared to deal with the deep divisions within Iraq's society and things pretty quickly went to hell. But had Iraq worked, it would have served as a template to be followed in the middle east. And who knows, if Iraq turns into a stable, prosperous, and democratic country in 20 years, who knows what effect that will have on the region. Creating democracies is a messy business. It failed in Russia and many other places.
But the long term goal of the US has always been to try and make the region more stable, as it was dependent on it. Thanks to fracking, we aren't so dependent on it for the time being. But it took some pretty brutal regimes to rule over all of their parts of the middle east, and thanks to some borders that really need to be re-drawn, it makes getting various parties on the same page difficult. Iraq fractured, Syria fractured, Libya fractured, Yemen fractured, and I am sure others would as well before its all said and done.
The US, England, France, what have you, are conveniently baked together into the useful shorthand of "the West" because that is often how they like to portray themselves and because while they may have different exact goals in mind the overall approach and impact is the same.
The fact you keep using the moniker 'they' and collectively keep grouping together the intent and actions by everything from animal welfare charities to intelligence services to collaborative projects between academics feels a bit weird, I won't lie.
If you want to really get into the nitty-gritty of it, it's no less simplistic to talk about "the Middle East" than it is to talk about "the West".
Errr....One is a geographic region of the world. Like Asia and Europe.
The other is a half baked colloquial concept used for designating the collective cultural offspring of specific political, philosophical, ethical and economic discourses from the past millennia. Like you said, it's a 'useful shorthand', but it's about as much use when discussing complex international matters as describing everything above the legs as 'the torso' during heart surgery. I mean, sure, it gets you moving in vaguely the right direction, but you need to look a bit more closely at the instruction sheet quite quickly.
Saying 'the West should stop meddling in the Middle East as a precursor to [undefined]' actually says very little beyond implying some vague belief that the 'West' is responsible for negative things there. A bit like Brexiteers blaming immigrants. So....what part of the 'West' needs to stop 'manipulating' things?
Should the tourists all go home? They bring revenue and cultural appreciation, but they also bring different concepts and behaviours, and end up remodelling local provinces to meet their needs instead of that of locals. Should the aid charities go? They provide a much needed degree of charity to people in desperate need, but they also prop up dictators and violent groups in order to get some of that aid through; as well as impacting negatively on local economies. What about foreign reporters and journalists? Sure, they often grab and disseminate accurate information which people like to know, but that sort of information flow often causes ructions and unrest. Foreign business? Western companies can grant revenue and technology for exploitation of resources which the locals often don't have access to on their own; but they can all too often suck out most of the profit and failt o re-invest it locally.
Heck, the 'West' involves cultural spread as well. Should we be banning Sky from showing the Simpsons in other parts of the world? Demonstrating that a better basic standard of living often causes jealousy or resentment, as well as making people feel like their culture is being edged out by the corporate behemoths of the 'West'. It also forces people who might not want to deal with issues such as gender inequality come face to face with those concepts. Should the 'West' be made to leave them alone?
You'll doubtless point out that I haven't mentioned a single government, but that's kind of my point. 'The 'West' is a very broad brush concept and just vaguely attributing ills in the Middle East to it is, I think, a bit intellectually lazy. There's nothing happening in the Middle East involving the West that doesn't also occur in Africa. Yet it's quite clear that the further you move North of the equator, the more problems with fundamentalism and military conflict gradually increase.
There's nothing wrong with saying that European or even 'Western' or North American Governments should stop interfering in local politics. It's a good starting place for debate. But it begins to descend into problems the moment you move past the obvious 'invasions/assassinations' level of discourse (and even there, one has to consider items like 9/11 and geopolitical concerns as legitimate items for potential military action).
For example, is conducting trade with Middle-Eastern governments 'interfering'? If not, what if it consists of selling arms and oppression methods/training? As mentioned before, what if that trade involves importing novel concepts along with entertainment packages or books, like the one where women count as independent actual people? Your local Wahhabist cleric might well consider that political interference, especially if religion is mixed with the state, as it causes political unrest.
Ulltimately it is, I think, the sort of issue that occurs when cultures clash in an oppositional way. Not just between the 'West' and those located in the Middle-East. But on a more general level. Information, goods, and people all travel at blinding speeds compared to yesteryear. Yet certain factors in the Middle East would appear to make that culture clash more violent and shocking then they do in other parts of the world, like South America. And I don't think that can or will be resolved in the next century without action so oppressive it would make most liberals shudder.
Its fairly brief, but their blog has some really interesting posts if you're into weaponry. They also have various reports on all sorts of topics, usually commissioned to provide an impartial overview of the subject matter. If you know Forgotten Weapons, Ian who runs that also works for ARES.
Ketara wrote: Saying 'the West should stop meddling in the Middle East as a precursor to [undefined]' actually says very little beyond implying some vague belief that the 'West' is responsible for negative things there. A bit like Brexiteers blaming immigrants. So....what part of the 'West' needs to stop 'manipulating' things?
The governments, intelligence agencies and armed forces that are the ones doing the y'know bombing, the arming of militant forces, the enforcement of sanctions and so on. Animal activitsts very obviously don't matter all that much in this context that we're talking about, the context of military and economic force applied to the Middle East by US, French, English etc (IE, "Western") governments, and state organs.
The people who decide and enforce policy.
But you actually know this already and are just being wilfully obtuse because your ideology prevents you from admitting that there in fact is such a thing as the West that has a long history of colonialism and interference in the Middle East. If you have followed various news about the political situations in the Middle East for long enough that you feel you can make the proclamation that nothing short of genocide will fix anything then you damned well know what "the West" means. Not the least because the people to whom it applies use it in the same way as I do. It's been in use since the Cold War, ffs.
But you actually know this already and are just being wilfully obtuse because your ideology prevents you from admitting that there in fact is such a thing as the West that has a long history of colonialism and interference in the Middle East...
Oh dear.
Guv, if you're going to throw about vague terminology and statements and then get arsey when I start picking up on that? There's not much discussion to be had. Either engage with me to discuss concepts of cultural transfer and impact properly or don't bother. Ranting about my 'ideology' is just wasting both your time and mine; it's only about two steps away from shouting 'Wake up sheeple!'
But you actually know this already and are just being wilfully obtuse because your ideology prevents you from admitting that there in fact is such a thing as the West that has a long history of colonialism and interference in the Middle East...
Oh dear.
Guv, if you're going to throw about vague terminology and statements and then get arsey when I start picking up on that? There's not much discussion to be had. Either engage with me to discuss concepts of cultural transfer and impact properly or don't bother. Ranting about my 'ideology' is just wasting both your time and mine; it's only about two steps away from shouting 'Wake up sheeple!'
You're pretending to not understand a term that has been in globally accepted use for over half a century, including by the people it refers to.
EDIT:
The reason I know that you aren't engaging with me honestly is that you didn't simply ask what I mean with "the West" and explain that you understood it as a broad cultural sphere, but instead went off with this:
The other is a half baked colloquial concept used for designating the collective cultural offspring of specific political, philosophical, ethical and economic discourses from the past millennia. Like you said, it's a 'useful shorthand', but it's about as much use when discussing complex international matters as describing everything above the legs as 'the torso' during heart surgery. I mean, sure, it gets you moving in vaguely the right direction, but you need to look a bit more closely at the instruction sheet quite quickly.
Saying 'the West should stop meddling in the Middle East as a precursor to [undefined]' actually says very little beyond implying some vague belief that the 'West' is responsible for negative things there. A bit like Brexiteers blaming immigrants. So....what part of the 'West' needs to stop 'manipulating' things?
Should the tourists all go home? They bring revenue and cultural appreciation, but they also bring different concepts and behaviours, and end up remodelling local provinces to meet their needs instead of that of locals. Should the aid charities go? They provide a much needed degree of charity to people in desperate need, but they also prop up dictators and violent groups in order to get some of that aid through; as well as impacting negatively on local economies. What about foreign reporters and journalists? Sure, they often grab and disseminate accurate information which people like to know, but that sort of information flow often causes ructions and unrest. Foreign business? Western companies can grant revenue and technology for exploitation of resources which the locals often don't have access to on their own; but they can all too often suck out most of the profit and failt o re-invest it locally.
Heck, the 'West' involves cultural spread as well. Should we be banning Sky from showing the Simpsons in other parts of the world? Demonstrating that a better basic standard of living often causes jealousy or resentment, as well as making people feel like their culture is being edged out by the corporate behemoths of the 'West'. It also forces people who might not want to deal with issues such as gender inequality come face to face with those concepts. Should the 'West' be made to leave them alone?
You'll doubtless point out that I haven't mentioned a single government, but that's kind of my point. 'The 'West' is a very broad brush concept and just vaguely attributing ills in the Middle East to it is, I think, a bit intellectually lazy. There's nothing happening in the Middle East involving the West that doesn't also occur in Africa. Yet it's quite clear that the further you move North of the equator, the more problems with fundamentalism and military conflict gradually increase.
There's nothing wrong with saying that European or even 'Western' or North American Governments should stop interfering in local politics. It's a good starting place for debate. But it begins to descend into problems the moment you move past the obvious 'invasions/assassinations' level of discourse (and even there, one has to consider items like 9/11 and geopolitical concerns as legitimate items for potential military action).
For example, is conducting trade with Middle-Eastern governments 'interfering'? If not, what if it consists of selling arms and oppression methods/training? As mentioned before, what if that trade involves importing novel concepts along with entertainment packages or books, like the one where women count as independent actual people? Your local Wahhabist cleric might well consider that political interference, especially if religion is mixed with the state, as it causes political unrest.
Ulltimately it is, I think, the sort of issue that occurs when cultures clash in an oppositional way. Not just between the 'West' and those located in the Middle-East. But on a more general level. Information, goods, and people all travel at blinding speeds compared to yesteryear. Yet certain factors in the Middle East would appear to make that culture clash more violent and shocking then they do in other parts of the world, like South America. And I don't think that can or will be resolved in the next century without action so oppressive it would make most liberals shudder.
wherein you list the Simpsons and tourists, that do not have political, economic or military power and very pointedly don't mention governments until halfway through when you demonstrate that you understand precisely what I mean when I say that the West should stop interfering in the Middle East. Communication is built on mutual good will and this principle is so strong that one immediately discounts absurd interpretations of even comically broad statements. I don't think that the Simpsons is interfering with Middle Eastern countries to the detriment of the people living there (the show hasn't become that[/] bad yet) because within the context of a discussion on the political situation it would be absurd to attribute military power to a North American TV show instead of to the US armed forces. You [i]know what I mean but find the sentiment ideologically unpalatable so you try to punish me for expressing it by trying to waste my time.
So I just watched the Maybot flounder around excruciatingly trying to justify trailing along behind the Washington wotsit to illegally blow up a few empty warehouses.
I am pretty sure we have now seen the 1st example of right wing virtue bombing. SHE took 7 days to make an "Urgent" decision and then gave 48hrs notice to Russia/Iran so they could remove there men and materials to safety before blowing up the empty building.
Don't get me wrong I'm glad no one was hurt and that no chemical weapons were there as if they had been we could have horribly killed a large amount of civilians with the fall out.
So an illegal attack that achieved nothing other than costing a fortune and making us look weak with the bonus of potentially more terrorists the alliance of incompetents I bring you F, UK, US
SeanDrake wrote: So I just watched the Maybot flounder around excruciatingly trying to justify trailing along behind the Washington wotsit to illegally blow up a few empty warehouses.
I am pretty sure we have now seen the 1st example of right wing virtue bombing. SHE took 7 days to make an "Urgent" decision and then gave 48hrs notice to Russia/Iran so they could remove there men and materials to safety before blowing up the empty building.
Don't get me wrong I'm glad no one was hurt and that no chemical weapons were there as if they had been we could have horribly killed a large amount of civilians with the fall out.
So an illegal attack that achieved nothing other than costing a fortune and making us look weak with the bonus of potentially more terrorists the alliance of incompetents I bring you F, UK, US
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think that they'd use munitions capable of destroying the chemicals sufficiently so as to stop that sort of issue right? Youknow, for the reasons you expressed... And well, its hardly like this is the first time that any Western forces have blown up Syrian chemical weapons sites; it just so happens that the media's placing a lot of attention on it now due to the political climate.
What made this attack illegal again? The West already has forces in country, and as I said, has had the mandate to attack chemical weapons sites for a while (besides those sites violating international law). It wasn't illegal in terms of any of the countries involved constitutions, there just wasn't the usual amount of paperwork (for the same eventuality - the government ignores what the other side says and does it anyway).
Besides, as that ARES article mentions, and civilian casualties of the event likely having resulted not from the West's attack, but the subsequent Syrian missile launch in the same area (where they bombed the area presumably to cause the civilian causalities which the West wanted to avoid. ...Youknow, that whole propaganda machine thing).
This whole situation comes across as various militaries performing an action which they understand, then from the outside we have people commenting on how horrible and imprecise everything was. Which, well you'd think that those who launched that attack would have considered all the implications and picked sites which would fit into their own PR aims. I.e. not to stir up support for the opposition (they could have similarly carpet bombed the sites and the surrounding neighbourhoods. ...Though that happens to be against international law - which fun fact, is something the Russians have been doing). Again, this is all ignoring all those other attacks which have been carried out over the years, and instead just moving with the mass media with the shock train.
Somehow this situation is worse than all those other attacks, besides the ones involving limiting Assad's use of chemical weapons? ...And limiting Assad's ability to use chemical weapons is a bad thing right? Even if in reality what these attacks meant was that the Syrians are forced to move their chemical weapons to locations secured by the Russians. ...Which, ah, hang on. Those chemical weapons are illegal right? And that would make the Russians culpable for their use in the region? Damn, I'm sure nobody ever even considered that... Nope, there's no wider picture going on here at all. ¬¬
It technically is illegal because you need Security Council approval (for offensive acts) which makes it legal, but seeing as Russia has a veto saying it is illegal holds absolutely zero value as you would never be able to go for the 'legal' option.
Well that part of the UN was designed in a more idealistic time when it was the US and friends plus the Soviets. Now with three large opposing powers the veto basically means the UN only acts on more mundane cases. There have been efforts to reform the SC or the veto power, but good luck trying a hand at reform when that veto can be used against any new proposal.
Its nice when it works, but when it doesn't other international law should trump a deadlock.
SHE took 7 days to make an "Urgent" decision and then gave 48hrs notice to Russia/Iran so they could remove there men and materials to safety before blowing up the empty building.
[...]So an illegal attack that achieved nothing other than costing a fortune
achievment:
kept talk about possible brexit votum manipulation by Cambridge Analytics out of the media for more than a week
Yeah why would I want to give up my power to veto, and open myself up to 'condemnations'? I mean, if I even cared about those.
Pretty genius of Stalin. Of course, the US has had its share of uses for it too. But I hate the veto. Its amazing what positives things don't get done because of one a-hole.
And keep in mind, we're in this situation of bombing Assad because the UN is powerless to even condemn it. Which is an absolute joke. So I wouldn't care what the UN deems legal and not. And who cares about breaking 'international law' if it can't be enforced or those who break it suffer no penalty?
I am not sure what good the UN is. Its really just a show. I guess it gives some countries a place to voice their opinions, but I feel most of what the UN can do can be done by other organizations. Its either completely ineffective, or effective because its manipulated. But I guess that's politics for you.
That perception is mainly created because the focus is so heavily on big power politics. But there is plenty that the UN does that is both useful and internationally relevant, such as setting up laws on less hot button issues, provide a platform for discourse, support of peace keeping, humanitarian aid and development.
Its just the veto in the Security Council that is really problematic. But that wasn't just Stalin, all 5 really hammered on that veto and it was a cooperative effort to force that veto on the rest of the future UN members.
The reason I know that you aren't engaging with me honestly
Mate, I've better things to do with my time than engage with people 'dishonestly'. Whatever that means in this context.
wherein you list the Simpsons and tourists, that do not have political, economic or military power and very pointedly don't mention governments until halfway through when you demonstrate that you understand precisely what I mean when I say that the West should stop interfering in the Middle East. Communication is built on mutual good will and this principle is so strong that one immediately discounts absurd interpretations of even comically broad statements.
Whether I aimed it badly, or you were looking the other way for some reason, that's clearly where the point missed you. I'll try and be more blunt and explicit.
Your statement was that the West needed to stop meddling in the Middle-East, because that's what gives it the problems it has today (or at least, a sufficiently large enough chunk of them to be the first thing worth noting).
My first point here, is that many of the problems you're ascribing to the 'West' actually have sod all to do with the 'West' as a concept (Belgium hasn't invaded the Middle East recently), but rather one or two very specific nations. You're using the term vaguely, badly and interchangeably primarily with 'America/France/Britain' for the most part. Which is a bit weird, given that most of that sort of activity they engage in is also heavily indulged in by the likes of the Russians, who are very decidedly not part of the 'West' by any stretch of the imagination, and the local nation of Iran. 'West' is very clearly not the appropriate term to be used here on that point.
My second point is that many of the tensions and ills which do result from the interference of the 'West' more generally actually have sod all to do with the more obvious events that you're intending by your statement (invasions, drones, etc) but rather other more cultural and mundane interactions between the two. Western soft power appears to be generally more easily exerted and less resented/causative of less conflict in other parts of the world and cultures than it does in the Middle-East. The 'West' has just as checkered a history in places like Somalia and Nigeria, but we don't see Boko Haram trying to recruit US nationals.
Put those two points together, and what I'm saying is that there is more than a grain of truth to the intent behind your statements. But the statement itself 'Stop the West from meddling in the Middle-East to solve a large number of problems there' is deceptively simply and misleading; on account of the fact that it's not really the 'West', and I don't think (I could be wrong) that the over-excessive strife in the region is rooted in the sort of meddling you're referring to, but rather more mundane cultural interactions.
From there, I'm speculating as to where on earth you'd draw the line for those more mundane interactions, and try to develop the 'No Western meddling' approach on all levels (instead of just the crude broad brush invasions one) into practicable policy; and indeed, whether or not that would actually be desirable.
In other news, the Russians and Syrians will allow the OPCW access to the site on Wednesday. Man, you would think someone that's innocent would be in a hurry to clear their name, not be engaged in stalling!
All those things you listed could be done and are done by other organizations, some of which, lose patience with the UN coming around to act if it can act at all, and just go ahead and do things on their own anyway (Red Cross, NATO, etc).
The UN is a show to make us all feel rosey about everyone doing something together. The problem is, it just doesn't do enough. And its not like I would even want it to. I do not want the US dictated by the UN and more than I expect the Russians or Syrians to be. That's why I just have to laugh about what the UN deems 'legal'. At the end of the day, everyone is going to act in their own self-interest. The UN doesn't prevent genocide, China tearing up reefs to make military bases in contested areas, etc.The threat of a UN Condemnation is a joke anyway. Condemn me! I won't lose any sleep at night.
I mean, lets look at what happened in Syria. A UN relief column got bombed. I am not sure the UN has even been back. Assad/Russians 1 - UN 0. Assad gases his own people with Russian support, UN tries to investigate, Russia vetos. Assad/Russians 2 - UN 0. US says screw this, bombs Assad, Russians demand a emergency session, no one cares what they have to say. People then argue if what Trump has done is legal, even though kids just got attacked by poison gas while everyone else shrugs their shoulder.
I swear we live on the stupidest planet in the galaxy, and that includes those with no life on them.
UN is treats symptoms, not causes. And its obvious that each party throws around UN approvals when they benefit from them, then defiantly state they will not be bound by those they do no agree with.
The UN does a lot, and is in large part a huge reason for increases in average life expectency across the globe, provision of food and healthcare, education, etc. The UN is great at these things.
What it does not do well is intercede in civil conflicts or interfere with the game of empire among the great powers.
This is also be explicit intentional design on the part of the powers that created the UN, even if left unstated. None of the great powers want the UN to actually have teeth.
Syria unfortunately is a civil conflict in the middle of the great game of empires.
That said, the UN does at least offer a discussion group among nations and is instrumental in cleaning up a lot of places and rebuilding, at least more than there would be if such places were left to themselves.
Yet there hasn't been an organization that has stepped up on the scale of the UN though. Humanitarian aid and development is incredibly splintered, one of the bigger ones is the Red Cross, which has its own host of issues. Peacekeeping really doesn't have an organizational replacement and neither does the crafting of international law on a global level. Certain aspects could be covered by other organisations, but all of them or on that scale? No.
The UN doesn't prevent anything because the UN is a inter-governmental organisation, not a supranational entity. Make it a supranational entity and it would have more power. But a lot of people in the US alone instinctively cringe when they hear UN army.
As for China's island building, the UN actually gives neighbouring countries and the US something to use against China in the form of UNCLOS. If UNCLOS didn't exist then the US couldn't even complain about it or enforce freedom of navigation.
You can't blame the UN for failures in Syria when the UN wasn't given any power in the first place to stop it.
Freakazoitt wrote: I do not understand the position of the Kurds. Do they create a separate state or not? If so, why do not they announce it to get some kind of official protection?
Because the moment they do, Turkey starts a war of genocide and the US gets dragged into a quagmire of epic proportions.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It technically is illegal because you need Security Council approval (for offensive acts) which makes it legal, but seeing as Russia has a veto saying it is illegal holds absolutely zero value as you would never be able to go for the 'legal' option.
Not quite. Here's the text in the UN charter;
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
So you can't use force to threaten someone's territory to overthrow their government, or anything inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. This has typically been interpreted to mean you can't have a lawful war without security council approval. However there's a few things that are consistent with UN purposes, like protecting your citizens and protecting universal human rights, which have been argued as legitimate justifications for war that don't need UN approval. This isn't necessarily a popular view among a lot of countries, as it opens the door to big countries attacking small countries on fig leaf justifications, but that doesn't make it wrong, the charter says what it says.
In this case, an attack to render Syria incapable of using chemical weapons would easily be justified by the terms of the charter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KTG17 wrote: Exactly, so the whole concept is absurd.
Relying on the UN to do the right thing is even more absurd.
It isn't absurd. It's like claiming the police are useless because they won't investigate if your wife is sleeping with the neighbor. The problem is your understanding of the organisation.
The UN isn't the international world police. Their primary goal is to prevent war, and part of this means making sure the UN won't be used as a tool to push through a war that one of the five permanent security council members objects to. If the UN was there to try and run the world, this would be a terrible design. But the UN isn't there to run the world, they're there to facilitate communication between countries to stop war happening in the first place. In that context the UN structure makes perfect sense.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It technically is illegal because you need Security Council approval (for offensive acts) which makes it legal, but seeing as Russia has a veto saying it is illegal holds absolutely zero value as you would never be able to go for the 'legal' option.
Not quite. Here's the text in the UN charter;
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
So you can't use force to threaten someone's territory to overthrow their government, or anything inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. This has typically been interpreted to mean you can't have a lawful war without security council approval. However there's a few things that are consistent with UN purposes, like protecting your citizens and protecting universal human rights, which have been argued as legitimate justifications for war that don't need UN approval. This isn't necessarily a popular view among a lot of countries, as it opens the door to big countries attacking small countries on fig leaf justifications, but that doesn't make it wrong, the charter says what it says.
In this case, an attack to render Syria incapable of using chemical weapons would easily be justified by the terms of the charter.
Well that is the problem with the UN Charter, its vague, take for example article 2:7
"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."
It leaves the door open for often claimed domestic issues, because chapter 7, article 39 doesn't mention human rights:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Going to 42:
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."
The UN Charter and SC are a mess in that regard because they were designed for a different age. While something is to be said for the interpretation method which I agree with. Its not that strong because it leaves the door open to all kinds of abuses and problems. When does something cross the threshold for intervention? Who gets to decide that? The system needs an overhaul. But nobody wants the loss of power involved in it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The UN Charter and SC are a mess in that regard because they were designed for a different age. While something is to be said for the interpretation method which I agree with. Its not that strong because it leaves the door open to all kinds of abuses and problems. When does something cross the threshold for intervention? Who gets to decide that? The system needs an overhaul. But nobody wants the loss of power involved in it.
I agree that the charter is vague, and your point that it was designed for a different age is bang on.
And yeah, who gets to decide the threshold for intervention is a good question, and the overwhelming majority of countries likely oppose the idea that lawful wars can be fought without UN sanction precisely out of fear that large countries would just claim the justification as a fig leaf for hostile action. The UK did exactly that in trying to justify its operations in the Suez.
I'm not saying it should be that way, just saying the current system isn't as clear as a lot of people assume. So I think we're agreed on all that.
As to fixing it, I'm not sure even with the political will there's an easy solution. Trying to prevent immoral wars of expansion or interference, while allowing for moral wars protecting that would guard human rights, and doing this while accepting there is no independent arbiter to decide each case is an impossible thing.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The UN Charter and SC are a mess in that regard because they were designed for a different age. While something is to be said for the interpretation method which I agree with. Its not that strong because it leaves the door open to all kinds of abuses and problems. When does something cross the threshold for intervention? Who gets to decide that? The system needs an overhaul. But nobody wants the loss of power involved in it.
I agree that the charter is vague, and your point that it was designed for a different age is bang on.
And yeah, who gets to decide the threshold for intervention is a good question, and the overwhelming majority of countries likely oppose the idea that lawful wars can be fought without UN sanction precisely out of fear that large countries would just claim the justification as a fig leaf for hostile action. The UK did exactly that in trying to justify its operations in the Suez.
I'm not saying it should be that way, just saying the current system isn't as clear as a lot of people assume. So I think we're agreed on all that.
As to fixing it, I'm not sure even with the political will there's an easy solution. Trying to prevent immoral wars of expansion or interference, while allowing for moral wars protecting that would guard human rights, and doing this while accepting there is no independent arbiter to decide each case is an impossible thing.
I am a big supporter of the Just War Theory as a concept, because war isn't always the worst option. In extension to that I'm also heavily inclined to support the notion of humanitarian interventions. The problem being is that both these concepts are seen as an expression of Western hegemonic power and both Russia, China and a great deal of non-Western countries oppose it out of reflex. Another problem is that frequently the Western political reality isn't up to the task of what would be required for a good conclusion of operations.
I understand you don't say it should be that way. I think almost everyone agrees there needs to be some middle ground. An independent arbiter would offer up a decent solution. But having an independent arbiter with enough credibility would see it turn into some sort of legal organisation akin to the ICC, which would be incredibly slow while speed would be the essence in many cases for intervention. I believe the Just War Theory offers good guidelines/a frame of reference together with current international law for looking into a more interpretation based mechanism, but the theory is still Western based and it would still be down to the discretion of individual countries. Perhaps a move away from the SC veto and the SC being the decider is a good move. Include as many countries as possible in votes of intervention, but let the SC work from that vote onwards. The current SC with its veto and the way it rotates members isn't a great way to show more global variations.
So the OPCW has said that its UN security team for the Douma investigation has been fired upon. I'm utterly shocked at this incredibly unexpected turn of events! Shocked I tell you!
I don't think its the Saudis, that's far too blatant for them and oddly timed with the war almost over. My money is on Israel because of its drone spat with Iran probably.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't think its the Saudis, that's far too blatant for them and oddly timed with the war almost over. My money is on Israel because of its drone spat with Iran probably.
Maybe. Whoever it was can ignore the air defense at will and strike targets with little recourse. Whoever it has to have a high level of tech or be allied to a country with so.
Its not like Syria announced downing anything or claimed exactly who or where it came from.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I don't think its the Saudis, that's far too blatant for them and oddly timed with the war almost over. My money is on Israel because of its drone spat with Iran probably.
Maybe. Whoever it was can ignore the air defense at will and strike targets with little recourse. Whoever it has to have a high level of tech or be allied to a country with so.
Its not like Syria announced downing anything or claimed exactly who or where it came from.
Well fact of the matter is the Russians run the most advanced air defences and Syria and they let anyone run around, no joke, most countries have a hotline to the Russians in Syria. What Syria has itself is too outdated to reliable take down modern equipment.
They did manage to down one Israeli jet in the last 7 years.
Perhaps its time to dust this thread off again. It seems after 7.5 years the civil war in Syria is going to end. Assad is preparing for an assault on Idlib and Russia is building up forces in the Med off Syria for an 'exercise' they claim. It seems the final offensive is imminent and that is going to turn out bloody. Assad used Idlib as a dumping ground to get rebel forces to leave other areas, but now they have nowhere left to go. Idlib is all that's left and a lot of anti Assad civilians and rebels are cooped up there.
It is going to be bloody and brutal I'm sure, whatever happens. That said, if Idlib does fall, it wont be the end. The Kurds aren't going go lay down their arms or be pushed out any time soon on the other side of the country, unless Assad is just willing to accept that partition.
Vaktathi wrote: It is going to be bloody and brutal I'm sure, whatever happens. That said, if Idlib does fall, it wont be the end. The Kurds aren't going go lay down their arms or be pushed out any time soon on the other side of the country, unless Assad is just willing to accept that partition.
One would assume that Erdogan's actions might make Assad and the Kurds come to some kind of terms. Fighting the rebels was one thing, starting a fight with the Kurds might not serve Assad well. Remember, Assad and the Kurds have already joined forces once to try and beat back a Turkish offensive. The enemy of my enemy and all that.
Vaktathi wrote: It is going to be bloody and brutal I'm sure, whatever happens. That said, if Idlib does fall, it wont be the end. The Kurds aren't going go lay down their arms or be pushed out any time soon on the other side of the country, unless Assad is just willing to accept that partition.
I think that either Assad will work together with Erdogan to put the Kurds back in line, or he will work out a deal with Kurdish leaders. They will probably get a huge deal of autonomy and influence on the condition that they remain part of Syria and support Assad's regime.
Thats not racism, its nationalism. And NO, they are not the same thing. I don't really want Russian troops to die either, but if any soldiers are to die, I'd just prefer it not be my own countrymen.
