|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 08 2016 03:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:56 zlefin wrote:On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic  I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely. can you provide some citations for the groups in question? Hard to do because there is a lot of groups with a lot of different specific circumstances, but this article describes some of the happenings there in some generality. The short version is that groups the US trained and armed to further its own interests eventually came to aid their enemies in the terrorist conflicts.
i'd say that doesn't entirely support the claims of yours I was responding to.
It doesn't establish them as isis by any other name. It says that a lot of them ended up joining isis later on. also, the us recognizes some of the other rebel groups as terrorists. so it feels like a moderate misrepresentation of the situation.
I also don't think the US has provided that much overall aid. (at least not through the official channels, who knows what the cia does)
I'd also quibble with you over some other points; like I think even if noone had gotten involved (or at least none of the majors), the area still could've been just as bad.
|
United States43210 Posts
On October 08 2016 03:25 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:On October 08 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
[quote]
ah, the old afghanistan strategy The US paid a lot of money (trillions) for the direct consequences of that strategy a few decades down the road, so it's surprising to me that anyone would want to repeat that. I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. I'm pretty isolationist but I think we should leave that shithole part of the world to themselves for a generation or two. I think the blame would rightly go to Assad and not the west when perpetuating civil wars longer than they would be otherwise.
It's not that simple. Back in the 1920s there were two competing families for pan-Arab leadership after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. The British backed the Hashemite family who did business with Anglo-Persian oil (BP), the Americans backed the house of Saud who did business with Standard Oil. The Hashemites were basically a traditional colonial elite who were happy to get palaces in exchange for letting white guys exploit all their natural resources, they're still running Jordan, oddly enough, which is noted for its neutrality towards Israel and general stability. The House of Saud were religious extremists who were pretty out there, even in the 1920s.
The British, having been in the empire game for a while, knew that you kill people like the Sauds, replace them with people like the Hashemites and then give the Hashemites so much money and so many guns that the Sauds never came back. The Americans, being new to the game, just saw the money. And so they gave the Wahhabi Sauds insane amounts of money and that money spread tendrils across the entire region and Standard Oil got very rich and moderate Islam got pushed to the fringes.
Nobody was ever going to be isolationist in the region where all the oil came from in the 20th Century. That's a fantasy. The security and stability of that region was always going to be a geopolitical priority for a dominant superpower, for the Americans as it was for the British before them. But even if isolationism was possible you can't divorce the rise of militant Islam from American imperial policy. Standard Oil's interests in the region provided an aegis under which Wahhabism was able to grow, Standard Oil's interests were American interests and since the 30s they received full diplomatic protection from Washington, including immunity from the British.
|
On October 08 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. No, the obvious reason is not to remove Assad, costs be damned. The obvious reason is to keep the conflict in balance and ongoing. If the US wanted Assad gone, costs be damned, he would have been gone before Russia even got involved. What reason does the US have to end a conflict that is draining all its enemies of precious resources? Morality sure isn't it or something would have been done in Syria and elsewhere (Africa) ages ago. How exactly do you think the US could have gotten rid of Assad? The Iraq way? Well you can see how politically unfeasible that was when the whole Ghouta chemical weapons / red line issue came up. The US electorate gave a very resounding and unambiguous "no" to Syrian involvement. Give weapons to people who will take Assad down for them? Well they did that too, but said people tend to fall into terrorist movements more than one would like. The US only got involved when ISIS advanced into Iraq, a pretty good example of the back-loaded cost of supporting terrorist groups (but far from the extent of those costs). Which enemies is the US bleeding? Russia? Russia hasn't spent that much in Syria on open military ventures. A few billion. The political costs of being involved in the first place are substantial but tangential and not cheap for the US either. Assad? Yes, but Syria has never been stable. ISIS? If the US didn't make it then it wouldn't exist in the first place. No, the US plan reeks more of a geopolitical power play that was horribly botched, like many others in the Middle East in recent years. Russia got strongly involved only after it was clear that the US didn't have any effective plan for Syria beyond "Assad gone then we'll figure it out."
Sure, if the US didnt back the rebels back in the cold war ISIS probably would not have existed but its pointless to worry about what if's when dealing with the present day situation.
Ending ISIS is nigh impossible, if they get beaten they will simply withdraw back underground and out of sight. Better to keep them in the open and spending resources on a continues ground war. Resources that are not being spend executing attacks on the West.
|
On October 08 2016 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
The US doesn't need to back Assad. It just needs to stop doing the Saudis' and other Arabs' dirty work for them. I really wonder why the US bothers given how buttfucking terrible the Saudis have been as allies. Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. At the end of the day, this objection is really "it's the best option but I don't like this option so there must be a better way." Well no, there isn't. War vs. dictatorship, one is substantially better than the other. Of course, things are worse than if no one had ever gotten involved in the first place, but there's fuck all you can do about that now. Displaced refugees are not easily re-placed, and there's not a simple way to solve that (and the European response has been problematic, to put it lightly). People will blame the US for fucking things up, but there isn't much that can be done about that at this point because the US already did what it did. The best path forward is stability, even if said stability involves some unpleasant concessions, and work forward from there. And we lose any credibility we had in region for decades. You are just kicking the can down the road because you see a dictator and stability for yourself as beneficial. Our children will have to sort out whatever mess arises in the Middle East after that. And this all assumes Assad can even regain control of Syria. The credibility ship has sailed. It was called "Iraq and Afghanistan Wars." As it stands, there is no immediately stable outcome in Syria and any improvements will have to come from a starting point of at least an unstable peace. At this point Assad will likely have to make concessions to some of the rebel parties to reestablish control of Syria. But that form of agreement is feasible.
So how do we get Assad back in power? Do we start attacking the rebels and providing him with weapon and logistical support?
|
On October 08 2016 03:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:56 zlefin wrote:On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely. can you provide some citations for the groups in question? Hard to do because there is a lot of groups with a lot of different specific circumstances, but this article describes some of the happenings there in some generality. The short version is that groups the US trained and armed to further its own interests eventually came to aid their enemies in the terrorist conflicts. i'd say that doesn't entirely support the claims of yours I was responding to. It doesn't establish them as isis by any other name. It says that a lot of them ended up joining isis later on. also, the us recognizes some of the other rebel groups as terrorists. so it feels like a moderate misrepresentation of the situation. I also don't think the US has provided that much overall aid. (at least not through the official channels, who knows what the cia does)
I don't mean "ISIS by any other name literally" because it isn't literally true, but only effectively true. That these "moderate rebels" the US tends to back in conflicts all over the world tend to later join terrorist movements is a well known reality of the blundering nature of US involvement in those conflicts.
The direct costs are probably not very high and that is the whole appeal. It looks very enticing: spend a tiny sum of money propping up a group that will fight zealously for your interests. The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. See: Mujahideen in Afghanistan leading to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and how cheap that conflict was.
|
On October 08 2016 03:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:57 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. No, the obvious reason is not to remove Assad, costs be damned. The obvious reason is to keep the conflict in balance and ongoing. If the US wanted Assad gone, costs be damned, he would have been gone before Russia even got involved. What reason does the US have to end a conflict that is draining all its enemies of precious resources? Morality sure isn't it or something would have been done in Syria and elsewhere (Africa) ages ago. How exactly do you think the US could have gotten rid of Assad? The Iraq way? Well you can see how politically unfeasible that was when the whole Ghouta chemical weapons / red line issue came up. The US electorate gave a very resounding and unambiguous "no" to Syrian involvement. Give weapons to people who will take Assad down for them? Well they did that too, but said people tend to fall into terrorist movements more than one would like. The US only got involved when ISIS advanced into Iraq, a pretty good example of the back-loaded cost of supporting terrorist groups (but far from the extent of those costs). Which enemies is the US bleeding? Russia? Russia hasn't spent that much in Syria on open military ventures. A few billion. The political costs of being involved in the first place are substantial but tangential and not cheap for the US either. Assad? Yes, but Syria has never been stable. ISIS? If the US didn't make it then it wouldn't exist in the first place. No, the US plan reeks more of a geopolitical power play that was horribly botched, like many others in the Middle East in recent years. Russia got strongly involved only after it was clear that the US didn't have any effective plan for Syria beyond "Assad gone then we'll figure it out." Sure, if the US didnt back the rebels back in the cold war ISIS probably would not have existed but its pointless to worry about what if's when dealing with the present day situation. Ending ISIS is nigh impossible, if they get beaten they will simply withdraw back underground and out of sight. Better to keep them in the open and spending resources on a continues ground war. Resources that are not being spend executing attacks on the West.
The US backed rebels back then, a decade ago, and right now. They never stopped and its judgment as to who to back has not improved.
ISIS can be beat, since terrorist movements aren't these invincible ideologies that don't die. Doing so requires some rather impressive cooperation between world nations though, because if one side arms the rebels while the other side fights, the rebels don't die. If everyone works to keep them down, they can be suppressed then systematically (and relatively cheaply) removed by law enforcement.
On October 08 2016 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:31 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
The US doesn't need to back Assad. It just needs to stop doing the Saudis' and other Arabs' dirty work for them. I really wonder why the US bothers given how buttfucking terrible the Saudis have been as allies. On October 08 2016 03:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. At the end of the day, this objection is really "it's the best option but I don't like this option so there must be a better way." Well no, there isn't. War vs. dictatorship, one is substantially better than the other. Of course, things are worse than if no one had ever gotten involved in the first place, but there's fuck all you can do about that now. Displaced refugees are not easily re-placed, and there's not a simple way to solve that (and the European response has been problematic, to put it lightly). People will blame the US for fucking things up, but there isn't much that can be done about that at this point because the US already did what it did. The best path forward is stability, even if said stability involves some unpleasant concessions, and work forward from there. And we lose any credibility we had in region for decades. You are just kicking the can down the road because you see a dictator and stability for yourself as beneficial. Our children will have to sort out whatever mess arises in the Middle East after that. And this all assumes Assad can even regain control of Syria. The credibility ship has sailed. It was called "Iraq and Afghanistan Wars." As it stands, there is no immediately stable outcome in Syria and any improvements will have to come from a starting point of at least an unstable peace. At this point Assad will likely have to make concessions to some of the rebel parties to reestablish control of Syria. But that form of agreement is feasible. So how do we get Assad back in power? Do we start attacking the rebels and providing him with weapon and logistical support?
At this point it's going to take a combination of negotiation, battle, and choosing allies. It's not an easy task and that's why perpetual civil war goes on.
|
The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy.
We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome.
|
On October 08 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome.
Given the complete lack of benefit from creating terrorist factions opposing the US, I would say that Hanlon's Razor applies.
|
On October 08 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome. Given the complete lack of benefit from creating terrorist factions opposing the US, I would say that Hanlon's Razor applies.
Did you forget about the contractors who have been making billions off of perpetual conflict?
|
On October 08 2016 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome. Given the complete lack of benefit from creating terrorist factions opposing the US, I would say that Hanlon's Razor applies. Did you forget about the contractors who have been making billions off of perpetual conflict?
No, but I do have enough experience with intelligence branches to know the difference between incompetence and playing dumb.
|
|
|
On October 08 2016 04:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome. Given the complete lack of benefit from creating terrorist factions opposing the US, I would say that Hanlon's Razor applies. Did you forget about the contractors who have been making billions off of perpetual conflict? No, but I do have enough experience with intelligence branches to know the difference between incompetence and playing dumb.
Perhaps they suffer from successful operations not being publicized, but I struggle to come up with much if any successes. That would indicate to me that they've never been competent. Seems somewhat implausible for them to be so consistently incompetent yet deemed the best we have.
Perhaps I'm just blanking on the list of successful interventions. One that comes to mind is the first gulf war, but it seems we went back to finish the "screw up", coincidentally continued by the initiators son.
Intentional or not, there are people getting massive amounts of money so long as the fighting continues. If world peace broke out tomorrow there are many businesses that would go out of business, they protect their profits like any other business would. Unfortunately, protecting their profits means perpetual war.
Whether the government is a hostage or a willing co-conspirator is really where the contention lays, and the explanation is, "No, we swear, we're just that stupid"
|
On October 07 2016 21:17 farvacola wrote:
Libertarians aren't really "liberal" relative to social issues in the first place; though "hands off" government lines up with some socially liberal policies, namely drug policy and church/state separation, it definitely doesn't line up with others, such as abortion access, welfare programs, and housing regulation/oversight.
Kinda depends on the flavoring of libertarian, but ideological libertarianism is fine with abortion. Unlikely to government fund it (or much of anything else) though. Welfare and housing regulation are properly economic policies, not social.
|
On October 08 2016 04:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 21:17 farvacola wrote:
Libertarians aren't really "liberal" relative to social issues in the first place; though "hands off" government lines up with some socially liberal policies, namely drug policy and church/state separation, it definitely doesn't line up with others, such as abortion access, welfare programs, and housing regulation/oversight. Kinda depends on the flavoring of libertarian, but ideological libertarianism is fine with abortion. Unlikely to government fund it (or much of anything else) though. Welfare and housing regulation are properly economic policies, not social.
Libertarians and healthcare is a weird issue. Because they don’t want the government to provide or mandate healthcare, but won’t go full Charles Dickens and have people be kicked out of emergency rooms if they can’t pay. So it isn’t a free market in any way, but the government shouldn’t be involved(unless people can’t pay and will die, then its fine).
|
On October 08 2016 04:43 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 21:17 farvacola wrote:
Libertarians aren't really "liberal" relative to social issues in the first place; though "hands off" government lines up with some socially liberal policies, namely drug policy and church/state separation, it definitely doesn't line up with others, such as abortion access, welfare programs, and housing regulation/oversight. Kinda depends on the flavoring of libertarian, but ideological libertarianism is fine with abortion. Unlikely to government fund it (or much of anything else) though. Welfare and housing regulation are properly economic policies, not social.
Economic policies pretty much all of the time are social policies, especially housing and welfare. There's few things that have more impact on social life than housing. Libertarians have made that distinction intentionally to keep economics in a vacuum.
|
|
|
On October 08 2016 04:58 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:40 KwarK wrote:On October 08 2016 03:25 Wolfstan wrote:On October 08 2016 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:31 Plansix wrote:On October 08 2016 02:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I'd much prefer that Assad retain power in Syria to the other available options. A factor many miss when talking about how bad and evil Assad is. I don't think anyone misses that. Its just that supporting him or allowing him to remain in power is a short term solution. The people who suffer under him will grow up and blame someone. And I bet it won't be Russia. So I ask once more: what is the viable alternative? As of now the only options seem to be Assad and worse. And heavy-handed dictatorship is far superior to perpetual civil war, as many who have lived under both situations will tell you. There isn't one at this time. But the keep Assad in power is a reductive and simplistic solution. Even if we go completely hands off, we will have to deal with the political ramifications of letting Syria go to Assad. All the refugees in the EU and Turkey, many can't can't go home. Assad will need to strike some sort of peace deal with ISIS or purge them, both which have unpredictable long term outcomes. Syria could easily become the next hosting ground for terrorists for the next 15 years, since it boarders Turkey, who is our ally. Any solution will have to involve the destruction of the terrorist movements, the end of the civil war, and the restoration of government control over Syria. This will likely involve Assad because the other options don't lead to this outcome. What happens next, happens at the negotiating table. The issue here is that once the war is over the willingness of each side to negotiate is diminished so there are multiple parties which want to push for the war to end on their favorable terms. So the war goes on. The problem with your solution is that is requires us to back a violent, genocidal dictator for the sole purpose that the instability in the region is a problem for us. So all the people that Assad has and will abuse in the future will blame the US. And our fear of what is going on in the region isn’t supported by any act of terror directly from a Syrian citizen or refugee. The solution only provides short term relief and creates a long term problem for the US and Europe. And the issues with the refugees will persist as well. I'm pretty isolationist but I think we should leave that shithole part of the world to themselves for a generation or two. I think the blame would rightly go to Assad and not the west when perpetuating civil wars longer than they would be otherwise. It's not that simple. Back in the 1920s there were two competing families for pan-Arab leadership after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. The British backed the Hashemite family who did business with Anglo-Persian oil (BP), the Americans backed the house of Saud who did business with Standard Oil. The Hashemites were basically a traditional colonial elite who were happy to get palaces in exchange for letting white guys exploit all their natural resources, they're still running Jordan, oddly enough, which is noted for its neutrality towards Israel and general stability. The House of Saud were religious extremists who were pretty out there, even in the 1920s. The British, having been in the empire game for a while, knew that you kill people like the Sauds, replace them with people like the Hashemites and then give the Hashemites so much money and so many guns that the Sauds never came back. The Americans, being new to the game, just saw the money. And so they gave the Wahhabi Sauds insane amounts of money and that money spread tendrils across the entire region and Standard Oil got very rich and moderate Islam got pushed to the fringes. Nobody was ever going to be isolationist in the region where all the oil came from in the 20th Century. That's a fantasy. The security and stability of that region was always going to be a geopolitical priority for a dominant superpower, for the Americans as it was for the British before them. But even if isolationism was possible you can't divorce the rise of militant Islam from American imperial policy. Standard Oil's interests in the region provided an aegis under which Wahhabism was able to grow, Standard Oil's interests were American interests and since the 30s they received full diplomatic protection from Washington, including immunity from the British. Haha, one of these days I need to compile a bunch of your posts together and create a "colonialism as explained by Kwark" blog or something.... They're usually pretty good!
This isnt really colonialism though, its what they went with after they had their fill of generic colonialism.
The Americans tried to do the same thing that the British tried earlier in Iran but Iran was already on the democracy ladder so after 20 odd years of a puppet dictator people got fed up and it backfired so hard we got the Ayatollahs.
|
On October 08 2016 04:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 03:35 zlefin wrote:On October 08 2016 03:00 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:56 zlefin wrote:On October 08 2016 02:54 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:43 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 08 2016 02:42 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 02:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Assad's a genocidal maniac. The question whether heavy handed dictatorship is superior to civil war isn't relevant because Syria is experiencing both. I actually think now that Obama should not have tolerated the red line cross and that Assad should have been replaced when the US had the chance.
Could have arranged some kind of interim government made up by the different rebel factions under international supervision or something along those lines. Bring Al Qaeda, ISIS, the Kurds, and a few moderate factions that are really just ISIS by any other name to the negotiating table and I'm sure we could make an arrangement that is mutually beneficial to everyone. Maybe I'm bad at Middle Eastern politics, but I can't tell if you're being sarcastic I think Assad will have to stay (for better or worse) but hopefully some of the moderate factions can be brought into the government. I'm only partially joking. Obviously I don't mean what I said literally, but there has been a definite tendency for the US to define "ISIS by any other name" rebels as moderates, and give them aid. Many such parties have explicitly folded into ISIS, many others stay separate to acquire US aid. The obvious reason is to remove Assad, costs be damned (the costs of supporting terrorist factions is small in the short term and only significant many years later), which has ended badly enough times that I start to wonder why the US still does it. Some concessions to some rebel factions will have to be made for peace, that much is likely. can you provide some citations for the groups in question? Hard to do because there is a lot of groups with a lot of different specific circumstances, but this article describes some of the happenings there in some generality. The short version is that groups the US trained and armed to further its own interests eventually came to aid their enemies in the terrorist conflicts. i'd say that doesn't entirely support the claims of yours I was responding to. It doesn't establish them as isis by any other name. It says that a lot of them ended up joining isis later on. also, the us recognizes some of the other rebel groups as terrorists. so it feels like a moderate misrepresentation of the situation. I also don't think the US has provided that much overall aid. (at least not through the official channels, who knows what the cia does) I don't mean "ISIS by any other name literally" because it isn't literally true, but only effectively true. That these "moderate rebels" the US tends to back in conflicts all over the world tend to later join terrorist movements is a well known reality of the blundering nature of US involvement in those conflicts. The direct costs are probably not very high and that is the whole appeal. It looks very enticing: spend a tiny sum of money propping up a group that will fight zealously for your interests. The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. See: Mujahideen in Afghanistan leading to Al Qaeda in Iraq, and how cheap that conflict was.
I dislike misuse of the term "literally" :D
also, i'd say they're not effectively true either, as the actual supported groups are markedly more moderate (usually at least); the problem is a failure ot account for the trend of morality degradation in long conflicts, and that the allies supported tend to come back to be a problem later, and that some of them will later join terror groups. which is a very different thing than what you said.
iirc there was a report in the past couple of years about the success rates of rebel supporting, and they were not good.
PS found the thing I was talking about: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/us/politics/cia-study-says-arming-rebels-seldom-works.html?_r=0
|
On October 08 2016 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 04:22 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 08 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On October 08 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:The cost comes many years later when they turn out to have their own interests in mind (no shit) and they are now the enemy. We're so good at making this happen it's hard not to see it as the actual goal. Like CIA intervention, it looks like a long list of f up's, unless you concede that perhaps the "screw up" was the intended outcome. Given the complete lack of benefit from creating terrorist factions opposing the US, I would say that Hanlon's Razor applies. Did you forget about the contractors who have been making billions off of perpetual conflict? No, but I do have enough experience with intelligence branches to know the difference between incompetence and playing dumb. Perhaps they suffer from successful operations not being publicized, but I struggle to come up with much if any successes. That would indicate to me that they've never been competent. Seems somewhat implausible for them to be so consistently incompetent yet deemed the best we have. Perhaps I'm just blanking on the list of successful interventions. One that comes to mind is the first gulf war, but it seems we went back to finish the "screw up", coincidentally continued by the initiators son. Intentional or not, there are people getting massive amounts of money so long as the fighting continues. If world peace broke out tomorrow there are many businesses that would go out of business, they protect their profits like any other business would. Unfortunately, protecting their profits means perpetual war. Whether the government is a hostage or a willing co-conspirator is really where the contention lays, and the explanation is, "No, we swear, we're just that stupid"
That the US intelligence wing has been particularly blunderous is a hard proposition to contest. It has many stupid blunders to its name, and many unsuccessful operations to answer for. To its credit, the FBI has mostly done its job, with a few mistakes such as the Boston Marathon bomber and of the "caught spying" variety. The NSA, it's hard to comment on and I won't attempt to, because the fruits of its efforts are hard to see. The CIA has certainly been involved in many poorly planned interventions that have had unintended and unfortunate consequences for US interests. There are a few notable successes; they did catch Osama eventually, and the routine procedural aspects of the agency tend to function pretty well. But they ultimately answer to a very blunderous master (Wolfowitz-style neoconservatism and its disciples) and as we have discussed before, "facts" are only as good as the people who interpret them and make decisions based on them.
|
The U.S. on Friday blamed the Russian government for the hacking of political sites and accused Moscow of trying to interfere with the upcoming presidential election.
Pressure has been mounting on the Obama administration to call out Russia for the hacking of U.S. political sites and email accounts. Federal officials are investigating cyberattacks at the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Election data systems in at least two states also have been breached.
"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a joint statement with the Department of Homeland Security.
The statement said recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on websites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks, and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona, are consistent with the methods and motivations of efforts directed by Russia, which has denied involvement.
Yahoo
nbd
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
