Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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!
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
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".
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/03 17:00:54
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.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2018/03/03 21:39:53
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/03 21:53:45
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
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?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 02:40:50
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.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
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?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/04 15:36:08
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/06 10:08:55
"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/06 18:58:26
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/07 07:36:26
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/07 09:16:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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 love how all aid organizations are in on it, and willingly murdering large numbers of people by smuggling in 20 tonnes of Chlorine.
At this point t I have apcepted that nearly everything in Syria is either a decoy, propaganda, trick or ruse!
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
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 ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/18 21:32:08
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.
Thats not racism, its nationalism.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
