|
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 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway.
I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us.
Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct.
|
On October 30 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway. I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us. Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct.
You agree that it's not Assad minions that are killing people outside of syria ? So how is it pragmatic ? Can you assure us with certainty that tomorrow a Syria without Assad, under an islamic regime, will not be a breeding ground for terrorism, nor that the weapon used in the Syrian conflict at the moment will not be used in other countries ?
The refugee problem is very secondary, the syrians represent less than 50 % of the refugees in Europe, many coming from other countries in Africa. And, with the rising sea level and the end of the world with the arrival of Thanos somewhere in 2017 (or is it 2018 ?), the number of refugees will increase. The war in Syria will soon be but a tiny drop in the flood.
|
On October 30 2016 12:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway. I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us. Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct. You agree that it's not Assad minions that are killing people outside of syria ? So how is it pragmatic ? Can you assure us with certainty that tomorrow a Syria without Assad, under an islamic regime, will not be a breeding ground for terrorism, nor that the weapon used in the Syrian conflict at the moment will be used in other countries ? The refugee problem is very secondary, the syrians represent less than 50 % of the refugees in Europe, many coming from other countries in Africa. And, with the rising sea level and the end of the world with the arrival of Thanos somewhere in 2017, the number of refugees will increase. The war in Syria will soon be but a tiny drop in the flood.
I think there needs to be an individual solution for every conflict in the region. You can fight Assad in Syria and ISIS in Iraq, I don't think there's a one size fits all solution. Arming rebels is already a bad solution and it probably would have been better to dispose of Assad in 2013 when Assad crossed Obamas infamous 'red line', now we're more or less left with only very messy FP tools.
And I don't think Syria is by any means a drop in the ocean. Together with Iraq it's the most important and unstable region at the moment. There's a chance that ending the conflicts there at least might bring the violence down to some manageable level.
|
Gold isn't an investment - it's a more secure way to store your wealth than FRN's. Same with silver. Of course if you want to invest then assets and stocks are what you want to be going after, but for most people it's not really a reliable alternative because you're a little fish in a huge pond in a manipulated system of Central Banking where inflation calls for you to try your hand rather than continuously lose purchasing power. That's why Central Banking and inflationary policies are economic destroyers in the long run.
|
One of my tutors invested in gold way back because he realized something and explained it to me using line graphs from his stocktrader site, and I understood none of it at the time. He suffered for a while, he is now a millionaire.
|
|
|
Short CNN interview about what's supposedly going on in the FBI:
https://streamable.com/htj3
What's new is that the Clinton Foundation is mentioned as being investigated.
|
On October 30 2016 12:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway. I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us. Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct. You agree that it's not Assad minions that are killing people outside of syria ? So how is it pragmatic ? Can you assure us with certainty that tomorrow a Syria without Assad, under an islamic regime, will not be a breeding ground for terrorism, nor that the weapon used in the Syrian conflict at the moment will not be used in other countries ? The refugee problem is very secondary, the syrians represent less than 50 % of the refugees in Europe, many coming from other countries in Africa. And, with the rising sea level and the end of the world with the arrival of Thanos somewhere in 2017 (or is it 2018 ?), the number of refugees will increase. The war in Syria will soon be but a tiny drop in the flood.
... Are you referencing a Marvel movie about Thanos? wat
Also there's so much wrong with your statistic statement, can you expand on it? You downplay the % refugees as part of Europe but talk about refugees from Africa without giving enough meaningful context. And saying less than 50% is meaningless, something like 45% is still a lot. Do you simply mean to say Syrian refugees aren't a majority of European refugees? 4million isn't a lot? Where else are they coming from and what for and what are we doing about that? Sources please.
The FP discussion here always seems to end up starting with uncertain premises that lead to conclusions that are impossible to prove or disprove because we don't have the information to finely debate these points, and then we inevitably end up appealing to extremes and arguing about semantics. Yeah sometimes the people above fuck up but thinking they're narrow-minded is so absurd unless you think they're all incompetent and that your view is unique and better when in reality it's way more nuanced, no?
Anyways I found this to be an nice read.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408
It says that Hillary was pro arming the rebels against al-Assad along with a bunch of Democratic and Conservative FP people, and the solution wasn't straightforward.
|
On October 30 2016 15:35 Probe1 wrote:
Then why is he a tutor?
*was
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 30 2016 15:44 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 12:15 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway. I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us. Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct. You agree that it's not Assad minions that are killing people outside of syria ? So how is it pragmatic ? Can you assure us with certainty that tomorrow a Syria without Assad, under an islamic regime, will not be a breeding ground for terrorism, nor that the weapon used in the Syrian conflict at the moment will not be used in other countries ? The refugee problem is very secondary, the syrians represent less than 50 % of the refugees in Europe, many coming from other countries in Africa. And, with the rising sea level and the end of the world with the arrival of Thanos somewhere in 2017 (or is it 2018 ?), the number of refugees will increase. The war in Syria will soon be but a tiny drop in the flood. Here's the problem with FP discussion, we end up starting with uncertain premises that lead to conclusions that are impossible to prove or disprove because we don't have the information to finely debate these points outside of filtered news articles, and then we inevitably end up appealing to extremes and arguing about semantics.
That or we write long dissertations that no one really wants to respond to because it takes waaaaayy too long to read through all the cited sources and craft a proper response (among other reasons).
|
On October 29 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 03:50 Piledriver wrote:
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide. I find it pretty ironic that the biggest argument in favor of nominating Hillary was that she is so ungodly electable that it would be folly to choose someone else.
On October 29 2016 04:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 04:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 29 2016 03:50 Piledriver wrote:
I'm just sad that the Democrats nominated Clinton. Anyone else, especially Biden or Bernie would have just carried this election in a landslide. I find it pretty ironic that the biggest argument in favor of nominating Hillary was that she is so ungodly electable that it would be folly to choose someone else. No the biggest argument in favor of Hillary was that Bernie did not have a clue as to how he was going to get any of his idea's implemented. Hillary does and her idea's are just Bernie light anyway. The biggest argument that resonates with you, perhaps. The polls in the primaries said that electability was the biggest reason people chose Hillary though.
No, this is flat-out false. The polls showed that Clinton was usually seen as more electable than Sanders in the general election, but electability was still absolutely not "the biggest reason people chose Hillary" in the primary. The top reasons included that her supporters saw her as experienced and qualified, felt that her platform aligned with their views, and thought that she cared about people like them.
See for example this Gallup poll conducted in March:
+ Show Spoiler +
Overall, Democratic primary voters considered experience, honesty and caring about people like them to be more important qualities than electability in the general election. See also this NBC/WSJ February poll (Q11) and this CBS News February poll (Q40).
|
You don't think deleting 33 ,000 emails after the subpeona has affected her honesty ratings with the public?
The CBS news poll there is interesting in that Independent voters are far closer to republicans than dems on the wanting someone who will shake up the system.Was this question asked again after Bernie dropped out of the race? I'd like to see if the correlation remained as strong.
|
Sanders was doing better vs republican potentials way better than Hillary especially later in the campaign - the "electability" was just something pro-hillary media pushed out . And she won because many people flat out didn't know Bernie much - you guys are overestimating how much people care about politics in detail.
|
On October 30 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:
The US went against Iran because it was the Cold War and they were picking fights with countries that weren't aligned with them. They held a grudge through to 2000 because of the embassy shit. They started new shit because they legitimately planned to regime change Iran after Iraq and they fucked shit up since then because they struggled to realign policy after the end of the Bush doctrine. American foreign policy seemed irrational because of a disconnect between their goal, regime change in Iran, and their means, sanctions. The goals were eventually matched to the means, regime change being changed to non proliferation.
It makes sense and is coherent if you consider the changing political currents within the US from the Cold War to the Bush era. as previous ones, none of your statements have a point attached to them; a reason for which they are so.
you take an idea <US wanted regime change in Iran>, you look what happens <US sanctions Iran>, you apply some hindsight logic based on which <sanctions did nothing/had no effect> then conclude that american policy was irrational.
americans then realizing that they were doing it wrong(hindsight again), somehow saw the light, changed their path and pursued the rational goal to take the alleged nukes away from Iran.
-what made US go from irrational to rational?; what was the trigger?.
-why it didn't happen sooner?; justify its timeline.
-show why was US irrational; maybe sanctions were all they had left because everything else they've tried, failed. that would make sanctions very rational because something is better than nothing.
after the deal was signed, Iran still suffered from some heavy secondary sanctions which US Treasury Department would revise every now and then and decide which ones(if any) would be lifted, so between irrational and rational their means haven't changed much.
-why do shiite militias supported by Iran fight alongside iraqis and US forces in the Mosul offensive while US still sanctions Iran for its support for terrorists.
-last but not least, factor in not only Israel into all of this, but also the other sunni Gulf states.
Edit; i'll stick to my personal conspiracies for now: EU, sunni Gulf States and Israel made a play against US in the Middle East. US allied itself with shiites(Iran, so indirectly with russians) and kurds; they're both killing sunnis in the Middle East to make a belt of shiite muslims: Iran, Iraq, Syria.
|
This discussion is from a few pages earlier but I have a question. Mohdoo says he works for 20$/hour but at the same time makes just 2200$ per month. Do you work for less than 40 hours per week or is there something I'm missing?
Hope my question is not too personal.
|
On October 30 2016 18:03 gsgfdf wrote:
This discussion is from a few pages earlier but I have a question. Mohdoo says he works for 20$/hour but at the same time makes just 2200$ per month. Do you work for less than 40 hours per week or is there something I'm missing?
Hope my question is not too personal.
Tax withholding. It's why Kwark (IIRC) made a comment about him probably over-withholding for his income level.
|
On October 30 2016 18:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 18:03 gsgfdf wrote:
This discussion is from a few pages earlier but I have a question. Mohdoo says he works for 20$/hour but at the same time makes just 2200$ per month. Do you work for less than 40 hours per week or is there something I'm missing?
Hope my question is not too personal. Tax withholding. It's why Kwark (IIRC) made a comment about him probably over-withholding for his income level.
Nope, that was me (maybe Kwark too though). Not sure to take getting misremembered as Kwark as a compliment or an insult. I'm saucy, had a blast at a Halloween party, and made it home safe, so I'm chalking it up as a compliment.
I'm surrounded by people who do the same thing. Despite H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and all the rest, there's still ~$1,000,000,000.00 in unclaimed tax money (I think that includes deductions?) every year.
Maybe I can get Kwark to start a business where instead of giving the feds your money interest free, we hold it for the year and give you back +.25%-1% (basically a auto-withdrawal savings account but give it a fancy tax-related name)
I could pool $500k (probably more) by next April.
|
Claim at least 2 or 3 on your W-4 (or more, but not more than 9 generally), or you can work out what your optimal claim is through a calculator so that you can get the least withheld without owing the stupid IRS penalty come april. If you want to civ disobedience it up, then claim 9 and say F.U feds :p
That will only address the interest free loans people give to the Feds. If you want to lower your tax rate then you should put the money into 401(k) and IRA and find any and every deductible you qualify for. The other option is to stop voting in asshats who spend more than they tax, and/or the people who want to tax everything to pay for their profligate promises so that they can 1) continue to hold office and all the cushy benefits that entails 2) make themselves feel empowered/good at the expense of the common person.
In general though, the tax code is meant to punish the average person while benefiting those who are intimately attached to that cretinous many thousands and thousands of pages of interest-group spewed garbage.
|
On October 30 2016 15:44 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2016 12:15 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 12:11 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 11:47 WhiteDog wrote:On October 30 2016 10:43 Nyxisto wrote:On October 30 2016 10:36 LegalLord wrote:On October 30 2016 10:33 Nyxisto wrote:
How would you characterise this? An exercise in looking at it from a narrow-minded perspective and a failure to consider the realistic alternatives, mostly. I don't get it, how is clinging to the one guy who is on a killing spree not narrow minded and how am I discarding the alternatives here? Sticking with Assad means not considering the alternatives, which as the article points out by the way will alienate the last remaining moderate forces if the conflict goes on. Who is clinging on him ? Are you talking about the Russian ? They analyzed the situation and came to the conclusion that Assad was the only stable not islamist solution in the long run. You can disagree on that (that it is viable in the long run, that it will stabilize the area) but, if you want to find a solution (and not appease your own conscience but putting down "the one guy who is on a killing spree" without anykind of solution for what comes after), you need to show us the viable alternative, that would stabilize the area and prevent further trouble, considering that what you propose (arming the rebels) would in fact destabilize it further. Note - again - that we are not syrian, and as such, our objective is not the end of trouble in Syria at all cost, nor is it justice (sadly maybe). We also want some kind of insurance in regards to our own safety and our own interests : we (and by we I mean "the occident", but even the world at large) don't want to support a group that would promote any kind of violence towards us, for exemple. We don't want the stability of the other power in the region to be in jeopardy. All in all, finishing Assad might be a moral thing to do in a vacuum, but in the long run, today, it seems actually impossible for anyone to propose, with a shred of certainty, a better solution to this "conflict". It's just too late to do anything anyway. I actually didn't want to make a moral argument, but simply a pragmatical one, also for our safety. The civil war at the moment is a breeding ground for terrorism all over the place, and assuming that the war will go on as long as Assad stays , a steady stream of foreign fighters will go to Syria, be created in Syria and come back to Europe. Ending this war and getting rid of Assad is not only a moral but also a safety issue for us. Not to mention that an overwhelming amount of refugees is running from Assad, not ISIS.Which isn't really surprising if the numbers I gave in the last post are even remotely correct. You agree that it's not Assad minions that are killing people outside of syria ? So how is it pragmatic ? Can you assure us with certainty that tomorrow a Syria without Assad, under an islamic regime, will not be a breeding ground for terrorism, nor that the weapon used in the Syrian conflict at the moment will not be used in other countries ? The refugee problem is very secondary, the syrians represent less than 50 % of the refugees in Europe, many coming from other countries in Africa. And, with the rising sea level and the end of the world with the arrival of Thanos somewhere in 2017 (or is it 2018 ?), the number of refugees will increase. The war in Syria will soon be but a tiny drop in the flood. ... Are you referencing a Marvel movie about Thanos? wat Also there's so much wrong with your statistic statement, can you expand on it? You downplay the % refugees as part of Europe but talk about refugees from Africa without giving enough meaningful context. And saying less than 50% is meaningless, something like 45% is still a lot. Do you simply mean to say Syrian refugees aren't a majority of European refugees? 4million isn't a lot? Where else are they coming from and what for and what are we doing about that? Sources please. The FP discussion here always seems to end up starting with uncertain premises that lead to conclusions that are impossible to prove or disprove because we don't have the information to finely debate these points, and then we inevitably end up appealing to extremes and arguing about semantics. Yeah sometimes the people above fuck up but thinking they're narrow-minded is so absurd unless you think they're all incompetent and that your view is unique and better when in reality it's way more nuanced, no? Anyways I found this to be an nice read. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408It says that Hillary was pro arming the rebels against al-Assad along with a bunch of Democratic and Conservative FP people, and the solution wasn't straightforward.
Hqve you been living under a rock for the last few years? He is not going to do your research for you just because you failed to educate yourself on the issue.
|
On October 30 2016 07:57 Nyxisto wrote:
"the rebels are evil" logic in the Syria conflict is pretty ridiculous given that Assad has killed people in the hundred thousands. Naturally every opposition in the country is legitimised if your own government attacks you with chemical weapons. Not to mention of course that Assad opportunistically empowered ISIS and radical forces when they are fighting other rebel groups.
I don't really get how "they are islamic rebels!" is an argument. Well.. it's Syria what did people expect, Shinto rebels?
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the uS for supporting Alqaeda and Rebels affiliated with Alqaeda, anyway the chemical attacks perpetuated by Assad are still debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oPdkvhp.jpg)
