EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7295
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
| ||
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
On April 07 2017 13:55 BigFan wrote: or maybe, just maybe the Assad regime didn't actually attack his own civilians when he has his hands busy with other issues? But he has done it before. He has already used chemical weapons against civilians a couple of times that we know of. It is probably a good strategy to beat down a rebellious people and it makes sense from that sick point of view. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On April 07 2017 14:04 BigFan wrote: What I'm saying is that I find it extremely hard to believe that Assad would gas his own people. This comment I stumbled onto on facebook is the kind of response people should really have: "And now our country has launched missles into Syria...at Damascus, specifically. I want to believe that the information we received regarding it being Assad's regime doing the chemical attack is accurate. I want to believe this is not a false flag operation by rebel forces and our ops teams to push the removal of Assad. I'm so conflicted on what to believe anymore. Everyone in power is the bad guy at this point. It makes no rational sense why Assad would chem bomb his own people when he is in the middle of a fight with ISIL. He is struggling against ISIL, why would he jeopardize his alliances and fragile cooperation with other countries by bombing innocents? And now our military is launching 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base. I hope the intel they got was rock solid and completely provable, or we just went hip deep into a very ugly war." They are not struggling against isis actually they have been having some significant wins against them. The majority of the fighting is done against the other rebel factions. My biggest argument against Hillary was her foreign policy and how she would keep on giving aid to Alqaeda in Aleppo, this strikes on the Syrian base seem to be limited and a "one off" occurrence, if not this could be easily be exploited by the rebels. I have been in favor of the revolution since 2011 but you have to take into consideration that any action you take against the Assad regime will be indirectly helping the more extremist groups. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
On April 07 2017 16:23 ImFromPortugal wrote: They are not struggling against isis actually they have been having some significant wins against them. The majority of the fighting is done against the other rebel factions. Which is essentially the argument I'm hearing from a lot of middle eastern progressives. That it's not clear that whatever happened isn't an attempt by the "rebels' aka *Al Nusra* (edit) to get the US to do what they can't. If I know the US, We slowly and sloppily oust Assad, arm some shell government, then the radicals come in 6 months- 1year later and take all the stuff we left the "government" to defend itself and then we work out a deal to sell weapons to the next country that might get destabilized as a result. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On April 07 2017 16:28 GreenHorizons wrote: Which is essentially the argument I'm hearing from a lot of middle eastern progressives. That it's not clear that whatever happened isn't an attempt by the "rebels' aka ISIL to get the US to do what they can't. If I know the US, We slowly and sloppily oust Assad, arm some shell government, then the radicals come in 6 months- 1year later and take all the stuff we left the "government" to defend itself and then we work out a deal to sell weapons to the next country that might get destabilized as a result. Let me stop you right there, we are not talking about isis here regarding the supposed "false-flag" the town where that happened was controlled by other rebel factions. You have to make that distinction if you want to have a serious conversation about this topics. We are talking about FSA factions and the recently formed HTS (Hayat THarir Al-Sham) coalition aka Al-Nusra. Isis may try to exploit this as well but right now we are talking about different rebel factions. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
On April 07 2017 16:31 ImFromPortugal wrote: Let me stop you right there, we are not talking about isis here regarding the supposed "false-flag" the town where that happened was controlled by other rebel factions. You have to make that distinction if you want to have a serious conversation about this topics. We are talking about FSA factions and the recently formed HTS (Hayat THarir Al-Sham) coalition aka Al-Nusra. Isis may try to exploit this as well but right now we are talking about different rebel factions. Yeah, you're right it's Al-Nusra which splintered off of Al Qaeda last year. They are apparently the more moderate rebels as they aren't really about the chopping off hands types of punishments, but still are pushing for an Islamic emirate in Syria. Hardly friendlies or to be automatically trusted but not ISIL. Which if I understand correctly is 30k people in Syria. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On April 07 2017 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote: Yeah, you're right it's Al-Nusra which splintered off of Al Qaeda last year. They are apparently the more moderate rebels as they aren't really about the chopping off hands types of punishments, but still are pushing for an Islamic emirate in Syria. Hardly friendlies or to be automatically trusted but not ISIL. Which if I understand correctly is 30k people in Syria. https://twitter.com/AP/status/850259221597659138 If we were talking about the most moderate factions i would say it's safe to presume the western backed SDF / YPG are the ones you are looking for. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
Anyway, I find this twitchiness about chemical weapons silly. Surely, they are bad, but so is killing people in any other way, I really don't see the huge difference. Using chemical weapons doesn't make Assad regime that much worse that it already was for just acting as a dictatorship, killing opponents left and right. Not that anyone in that conflict is particularly nice, but "Assad is bad because sarin" is an extremely simplistic view. The western world should finally pick up a consistent stance: do we see ourselves as world police and feel obliged to push certain values across the globe or not? If not, then stay the fuck out of conflicts like Syria, because it's not our business. If yes, then do it properly - which means that everyone who considers themselves "western civilization" gets involved, not just the US and sides in conflicts aren't picked by "who looks the nicest" or "who sells us the most oil", but full implementation of human rights, including right for representation is enforced, also including the willingness to change borders accordingly. This half-assed "support the moderate rebels" approach is completely pointless, so is the blind "we must fight the evil ISIS" without any follow-up plan. Seriously, Assad is a huge twat and as a child of a totalitarian regime, I'd love to see him ousted. But it's really impossible to say "remove Assad" and then to bitch about "islamists taking over", because that simply is the thing that will happen if Assad is ever removed, it is quite likely the fucking will of the majority there - not ISIS level freaks, but someone at least a little more Islam-oriented for our liking would win the elections if there ever are any. That much we learned from the Arab spring, right? Let me reiterate this again: the key issue here is that many of the post-colonial borders have been drawn in a completely idiotic way by people with very different interests than the well-being of the locals and we are still harvesting the crops of that - and of the neverending insistence on not changing any international borders ever, fueled by world leaders that can't get their heads out of the 19th century and consider keeping their territory the most important end goal of everything. Syria needs to be split, so does Iraq, according to ethnic borders with possible additional resettlement (funded mainly by the West), this is the only long-term solution to anything. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
The first question is: If Syria (as represented by the Assad regime) declared war on the United States right now, which side would in fact be the aggressor? (I'm well aware that Syria is unlikely to do that, but that isn't the point.) The second question is: what would the United States' position on that question be? And as a corollary, what would be the consequences of other nations disagreeing with that position? | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
On April 07 2017 17:31 ImFromPortugal wrote: If we were talking about the most moderate factions i would say it's safe to presume the western backed SDF / YPG are the ones you are looking for. Not most, just more moderate than the worst factions there. After refreshing myself on the status there there are even more than I remember with different problems. Problem with SDF/YPG are Kurdish relations with Turkey iirc, so while they are the "most moderate" they're slightly more inflammatory for us than they seem because of the stress they put on our relationship with Turkey? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
Coherence please. Meanwhile according to the Kremlin, Assad only used conventional weapons but they hit a terrorist hangard full of chemical weapon to which i answer, hey, Vlad, fuck you. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote: Crazy how much Trump suddenly cares about syrian civilians fate after having made it so clear that those people were all terrorists and that the US shouldn't grant asylum to a single one of them. Coherence please. mcmasters and mattis presented the plan to him, he saw an opportunity to deflect from trouble at home and boost his ratings, and signed off on it. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote: Crazy how much Trump suddenly cares about syrian civilians fate after having made it so clear that those people were all terrorists and that the US shouldn't grant asylum to a single one of them. Coherence please. Meanwhile according to the Kremlin, Assad only used conventional weapons but they hit a terrorist hangard full of chemical weapon to which i answer, hey, Vlad, fuck you. The attack was supposedly sarin, right? Sarin can't be released "by accident", or by hitting a hangar, it is stored as components and only mixed on release, because it's too corrosive. Maybe some would accidentally mix on exploding a hangar, but not a large scale gas leak. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:36 ahswtini wrote: mcmasters and mattis presented the plan to him, he saw an opportunity to deflect from trouble at home and boost his ratings, and signed off on it. So much for those who complained about a lack of plan and coherent vision for Syria from the previous administration. What's the idea here? Bomb the bad hombres without giving a thought about the consequences? Sounds like fun. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:36 ahswtini wrote: mcmasters and mattis presented the plan to him, he saw an opportunity to deflect from trouble at home and boost his ratings, and signed off on it. Unless he incites Russia into WWIII, it was just a political stunt. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:41 opisska wrote: The attack was supposedly sarin, right? Sarin can't be released "by accident", or by hitting a hangar, it is stored as components and only mixed on release, because it's too corrosive. Maybe some would accidentally mix on exploding a hangar, but not a large scale gas leak. I don't think technical details are necessary to figure out that the Kremlin is just lying, for a change. But that it wouldn't even be technically possible makes it even more infuriating. Who believes this sheiss? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:41 Biff The Understudy wrote: So much for those who complained about a lack of plan and coherent vision for Syria from the previous administration. What's the idea here? Bomb the bad hombres without giving a thought about the consequences? Sounds like fun. what consequences? the russians were warned, and they obviously have to sound annoyed by it, but that's as far as it'll go. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23600 Posts
On April 07 2017 18:49 ahswtini wrote: what consequences? the russians were warned, and they obviously have to sound annoyed by it, but that's as far as it'll go. But there's a large contingent from Hillary to McCain that want MORE attacks against Syria asap. | ||
| ||
