|
?? Public opinion is overwhelmingly anti-US in the middle-east, the US spends all their efforts 'managing' any attempts at real democracy. (like the protests in Egypt, where they wanted the regime to stay intact)
Public opinion here (including the government) was overwhelmingly supportive of (most of) the events that happened in Tahrir Square. Current administration didn't quite predict the election results very well, though.
So your saying America only got involved because there "foreign policy" demands them too?(maybe demand is to strong of word but my head went blank)
There is no other reason as to why the US are helping the Syrian rebels? (to your knowledge) I just don't see that to be a valid reason, not saying it is right or wrong though. I personally think instead of helping below "board" being all secretive and stealthy, to just come out and send some troops in and do it properly? Biding by the rules set by the UN as well, asking to be able to go into Syria and help out.
You need to understand the complex relationships involved in this entire situation. Syria and Iran are bosom buddies to the very end. Cutting Syria off from Iran would be a major blow to Iran's influence throughout the middle east. Despite what a lot of people think, Iran has its grubby little fingers in a lot of places (Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc). Not to mention, as you may have been seeing on the news, the Russian government loves Assad as well. They've been heavily ramping up arms sales to pro government forces. I wouldn't be surprised if China was bolstering Assad as well in some regard. I remember hearing a Russian official saying that they would prevent the west from interfering by force if necessary. If the US went in without a UN resolution (resolution not likely to happen considering China and Russia are permanent members of the security council), it would anger Russia and China, who both happen to be big trading partners of the US.
This security firm action does explain why the US has been backing off pressuring the UN about Syria lately though. I don't want the US putting boots on the ground or birds in the air, but if Russia is going to get involved, they can't criticize anyone for doing the same.
|
On March 21 2012 19:17 Pandemona wrote:
So your saying America only got involved because there "foreign policy" demands them too?(maybe demand is to strong of word but my head went blank)
There is no other reason as to why the US are helping the Syrian rebels? (to your knowledge) I just don't see that to be a valid reason, not saying it is right or wrong though. I personally think instead of helping below "board" being all secretive and stealthy, to just come out and send some troops in and do it properly? Biding by the rules set by the UN as well, asking to be able to go into Syria and help out.
Syria is an ally to Iran, so if one wanted to isolate Iran, they would knock out Syria.
If the US put troops in Syria (which they will never do) they will violate UN resolutions.
Providing training and weapons on the other hand, is also illegal. But if you do it covert enough, you always have plausible deniability.
Conspiracy theory people tend to think that there are truckloads of ammo being delivered, straight from US army bases to Syrian revolutionaries.
In reality, the whole thing is so subtle that you can't ever really prove that it is being done.
The US government pays the CIA, makes the funds classified, then channels the funds and it finds its way to people that are sympathetic to the cause of the Syrians. They in turn will use the funds in the most logical way (buying weapons from arms dealers) and then the weapons and ammo get to the Syrian people.
The Syrian government gets their ammo from the same arms dealers, and from Russia.
So why does the US take this approach? Because it doesn't raise an outrage. If the US deployed troops, there would be an outrage.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51436 Posts
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them.
|
On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them.
That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war.
In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow.
So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51436 Posts
On March 21 2012 20:10 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them. That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war. In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow. So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights.
Oh right so its not like a proper vote, its all for one of none at all type system. Wow UN is more fucked up than i thought!
|
On March 21 2012 20:14 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:10 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them. That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war. In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow. So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights. Oh right so its not like a proper vote, its all for one of none at all type system. Wow UN is more fucked up than i thought!
It's just realistic. If you tried to pass resolutions against the will of great powers they'd just ignore it, effectively destroying the system. If there was a resolution against the US how would you enforce it?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51436 Posts
On March 21 2012 20:26 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:14 Pandemona wrote:On March 21 2012 20:10 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them. That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war. In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow. So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights. Oh right so its not like a proper vote, its all for one of none at all type system. Wow UN is more fucked up than i thought! It's just realistic. If you tried to pass resolutions against the will of great powers they'd just ignore it, effectively destroying the system. If there was a resolution against the US how would you enforce it?
Yes but in a sense what is the point of having a board room filled with every nation to have 4/5 of the biggest nations saying you cant do this cant do that never agreeing on anything and everyone to be whispering and plotting with eachother. Its worst than FIFA on paper. If there was ever a war between nations of interest, lets take Iran vs Isreal it will be extremely interesting to see the UN not get involved because Russia and China don't want anything to do with it? Or want to help Iran and not help Isreal?
I just don't see the point in having a UN security council as it be, not agreeing on anything due to diplomatic interesting differentiating. All they have agreed on ever is tackling Global Warming isn't it?
|
On March 21 2012 20:31 Pandemona wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:26 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 20:14 Pandemona wrote:On March 21 2012 20:10 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them. That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war. In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow. So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights. Oh right so its not like a proper vote, its all for one of none at all type system. Wow UN is more fucked up than i thought! It's just realistic. If you tried to pass resolutions against the will of great powers they'd just ignore it, effectively destroying the system. If there was a resolution against the US how would you enforce it? Yes but in a sense what is the point of having a board room filled with every nation to have 4/5 of the biggest nations saying you cant do this cant do that never agreeing on anything and everyone to be whispering and plotting with eachother. Its worst than FIFA on paper. If there was ever a war between nations of interest, lets take Iran vs Isreal it will be extremely interesting to see the UN not get involved because Russia and China don't want anything to do with it? Or want to help Iran and not help Isreal? I just don't see the point in having a UN security council as it be, not agreeing on anything due to diplomatic interesting differentiating. All they have agreed on ever is tackling Global Warming isn't it?
They haven't agreed on tackling Global Warming either 
The UNSC (Security Council) should be viewed as a discussion forum. If you like it's a formal way for the great powers to allow or forbid certain military actions. Even if there was no Security Council, something similar would exist in informal discussions.
Of course there's more to the UN than the Security Council, and some UN institutions actually wield some power on their own.
|
There is nothing useful on wikileaks unless you know what you are looking for. If you ask me, it was probably just a ploy by the US government themselves to take attention off of what is really important, as in they want you to think some secret documents that revealed everything have been released, when in reality they reveal nothing.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51436 Posts
On March 21 2012 20:50 -Trippin- wrote:
There is nothing useful on wikileaks unless you know what you are looking for. If you ask me, it was probably just a ploy by the US government themselves to take attention off of what is really important, as in they want you to think some secret documents that revealed everything have been released, when in reality they reveal nothing.
Someones been watching south park 
On March 21 2012 20:46 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:31 Pandemona wrote:On March 21 2012 20:26 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 20:14 Pandemona wrote:On March 21 2012 20:10 hypercube wrote:On March 21 2012 19:55 Pandemona wrote:
Im not saying to just send troops in willy nilly, i know they need UN regulations to do so, but if they wanted to do that they would always have England propping up the rear as usual ;; so they would have certain leverage on the others, im pretty sure it doesn't have to be 100% clear swing in favor of doing something like this? Im sure if 80% of the security council agree'd military intervention was the way forward in Iran, China/Russia etc would not have a leg to stand on. But that is another story.
I understand now Syria is a close ally with the devil in Iran along with other countries i know, but that is going sort itself out by the end of the year when Isreal decide to march into war with them. That's not how it works. The permanent members of the Security Council (USA, Russia, China, UK, France) can veto any resolution. The idea is that you'd rather have them veto the idea in the Security Council than threaten nuclear war. In practice, only the US, Russia and China have real power to veto. I assume, if France and the UK could be pressured to drop their veto on almost any issue by the US. Even if they did veto, there's a decent chance it would be circumvented somehow. So, yes, Russia and China have the legal right to prevent military intervention. More importantly they have the military and economic power to protect those rights. Oh right so its not like a proper vote, its all for one of none at all type system. Wow UN is more fucked up than i thought! It's just realistic. If you tried to pass resolutions against the will of great powers they'd just ignore it, effectively destroying the system. If there was a resolution against the US how would you enforce it? Yes but in a sense what is the point of having a board room filled with every nation to have 4/5 of the biggest nations saying you cant do this cant do that never agreeing on anything and everyone to be whispering and plotting with eachother. Its worst than FIFA on paper. If there was ever a war between nations of interest, lets take Iran vs Isreal it will be extremely interesting to see the UN not get involved because Russia and China don't want anything to do with it? Or want to help Iran and not help Isreal? I just don't see the point in having a UN security council as it be, not agreeing on anything due to diplomatic interesting differentiating. All they have agreed on ever is tackling Global Warming isn't it? They haven't agreed on tackling Global Warming either The UNSC (Security Council) should be viewed as a discussion forum. If you like it's a formal way for the great powers to allow or forbid certain military actions. Even if there was no Security Council, something similar would exist in informal discussions. Of course there's more to the UN than the Security Council, and some UN institutions actually wield some power on their own.
I guess, oh right they didn't agree on global warming either >.< jesus haha! Stupid UN.
|
On July 26 2010 08:49 teamsolid wrote:
Wouldn't this give the enemy troops valuable intel and be potentially harmful to US troops in Afghanistan?
No. The enemy is not as organized as a nation would, the NATO has just clearly superior equipment and everything.
|
On March 21 2012 20:50 -Trippin- wrote:
There is nothing useful on wikileaks unless you know what you are looking for. If you ask me, it was probably just a ploy by the US government themselves to take attention off of what is really important, as in they want you to think some secret documents that revealed everything have been released, when in reality they reveal nothing.
Yes, I realize that the moment I read about these documents, everything I ever knew and cared about, is gone.
Someone I knew got hit by a car thist morning. I don't care, all I can think about are these secret documents. Thanks USA for brainwashing me.
|
On March 21 2012 19:45 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 19:17 Pandemona wrote:
So your saying America only got involved because there "foreign policy" demands them too?(maybe demand is to strong of word but my head went blank)
There is no other reason as to why the US are helping the Syrian rebels? (to your knowledge) I just don't see that to be a valid reason, not saying it is right or wrong though. I personally think instead of helping below "board" being all secretive and stealthy, to just come out and send some troops in and do it properly? Biding by the rules set by the UN as well, asking to be able to go into Syria and help out. Syria is an ally to Iran, so if one wanted to isolate Iran, they would knock out Syria. If the US put troops in Syria (which they will never do) they will violate UN resolutions. Providing training and weapons on the other hand, is also illegal. But if you do it covert enough, you always have plausible deniability. Conspiracy theory people tend to think that there are truckloads of ammo being delivered, straight from US army bases to Syrian revolutionaries. In reality, the whole thing is so subtle that you can't ever really prove that it is being done. The US government pays the CIA, makes the funds classified, then channels the funds and it finds its way to people that are sympathetic to the cause of the Syrians. They in turn will use the funds in the most logical way (buying weapons from arms dealers) and then the weapons and ammo get to the Syrian people. The Syrian government gets their ammo from the same arms dealers, and from Russia. So why does the US take this approach? Because it doesn't raise an outrage. If the US deployed troops, there would be an outrage.
And this is the exact reason why this all mess started. CIA gave money to buy weapons to Syrian rebels and then Syrian government went all hell on armed rebels.
I am not defending Syrian government, although I am not most competent to debate their internal policy, but I am almost sure none of this would have started if rebels would not have been backed by US.
This whole thing is a US fuckup, if they went ahead with this scheme they should have been 100% sure they could help these people once tanks and helicopters started firing at them.
|
On March 21 2012 21:57 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 19:45 zalz wrote:On March 21 2012 19:17 Pandemona wrote:
So your saying America only got involved because there "foreign policy" demands them too?(maybe demand is to strong of word but my head went blank)
There is no other reason as to why the US are helping the Syrian rebels? (to your knowledge) I just don't see that to be a valid reason, not saying it is right or wrong though. I personally think instead of helping below "board" being all secretive and stealthy, to just come out and send some troops in and do it properly? Biding by the rules set by the UN as well, asking to be able to go into Syria and help out. Syria is an ally to Iran, so if one wanted to isolate Iran, they would knock out Syria. If the US put troops in Syria (which they will never do) they will violate UN resolutions. Providing training and weapons on the other hand, is also illegal. But if you do it covert enough, you always have plausible deniability. Conspiracy theory people tend to think that there are truckloads of ammo being delivered, straight from US army bases to Syrian revolutionaries. In reality, the whole thing is so subtle that you can't ever really prove that it is being done. The US government pays the CIA, makes the funds classified, then channels the funds and it finds its way to people that are sympathetic to the cause of the Syrians. They in turn will use the funds in the most logical way (buying weapons from arms dealers) and then the weapons and ammo get to the Syrian people. The Syrian government gets their ammo from the same arms dealers, and from Russia. So why does the US take this approach? Because it doesn't raise an outrage. If the US deployed troops, there would be an outrage. And this is the exact reason why this all mess started. CIA gave money to buy weapons to Syrian rebels and then Syrian government went all hell on armed rebels. I am not defending Syrian government, although I am not most competent to debate their internal policy, but I am almost sure none of this would have started if rebels would not have been backed by US. This whole thing is a US fuckup, if they went ahead with this scheme they should have been 100% sure they could help these people once tanks and helicopters started firing at them.
Wrong.
The US isn't going to risk a mistake by throwing in a ton of weapons at people that don't care to use them, or people that will be murdered off in a day or two.
Once the revolution was genuine and had momentum, that is probably when the US decided to begin truly supporting it.
To suggest that these uprisings are not genuine is an insult against all the Syrian people. It is to suggest that they love the hand that beats them. That they are submissive and loved the oppressive regime of Syria.
All people long to be free, and all people deserve to be free. Syrians are no different than any other group of people. They don't love the whip.
Syrians rose up because their government kept beating on them day in day out. Long before this uprising broke out, Syria constantly ranked among the worst places to live in terms of freedom.
That wasn't, as conspiracy theorists like to suggest, a 30 year long scheme to build up to this. The people know the truth. No amount of propaganda can hide the fact that people wake up one morning and find their friends have been taken in the night, never to be seen again. To ask questions is to show sympathy, to show symphathy is to be a traitor to the state, to be a traitor is death.
Syrians rose up out of a genuine desire to be rid of this regime.
To pin this on the US is unfair and unbased. It is the ultimate desire to pin all problems on the USA. A childish undertaking at best.
The Syrian government was breaking their people's spirit for decades, and then when they fight back with weapons from the US and other supporters, you blame them?
It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better?
|
It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better
Have you been in the Bahrain thread lately? What is the difference between Syrian Civilians, and protestors in Bahrain. If we were giving Assad 50 mill in small arms(like Obama to Bahrain) to put down the rebellion, then what? The dreaded two thumbs up from Zalz? mwuhah
Edit, grammer, crazy here today
|
On March 22 2012 03:13 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better Have you been in the Bahrain thread lately? What is the difference between Syrian Civilians, and protestors in Bahrain. If we were giving Assad 50 mill in small arms(like Obama to Bahrain) to put down the rebellion, then what? The dreaded two thumbs up from Zalz? mwuhah Edit, grammer, crazy here today
I never said that the US was beyond error.
End of the day they do play realpolitiks, something that I don't support in the slightest.
But at times that lines up with my convictions (like in Syria) and I am content. Other times it doesn't (Bahrain) and I am not happy. In those cases I hope that the US will use its pressure to achieve positive change in the region, much like how it once did in South-Korea.
I will be the first to say that the US should dedicate itself to the goal of spreading democracy to each nation that it can, but that is easier said than done.
On the inside it faces people that prefer a more machivellian approach, on the outside it faces dictators that might be friendly, but have no intention of really following up on their promise to turn their nations into democracies.
For as powerfull as the US might be, it isn't as powerfull as people tend to make it out to be. It still has to deal with the realities of the world that they inhabit.
Not every country has a George Washington that will give away his position of power. Many dictators only care for their own position, or they have some twisted view that they might be bad, but they aren't the worst. Some, like Saddam, simply don't give a fuck about anything other than their own position.
I don't know all too much about Bahrain, but if I recall, the ruling power are the religious minority. That makes it very difficult to push them towards democracy. Things like Sunni/Shia are very big in the middle-east. It is hard to convince the ruling power to establish a democracy when they feel they are outnumbered and fear that, if the aren't the criminals, they will be the victims.
These people are not just puppets to the US. They are living human beings that have their own interests and motivations. It isn't so simple that the US can just call them up and order them to make a democracy.
But I agree that the US should keep pressuring these countries into democractic reforms.
|
On March 22 2012 04:15 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 03:13 BioNova wrote:It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better Have you been in the Bahrain thread lately? What is the difference between Syrian Civilians, and protestors in Bahrain. If we were giving Assad 50 mill in small arms(like Obama to Bahrain) to put down the rebellion, then what? The dreaded two thumbs up from Zalz? mwuhah Edit, grammer, crazy here today I never said that the US was beyond error. End of the day they do play realpolitiks, something that I don't support in the slightest. But at times that lines up with my convictions (like in Syria) and I am content. Other times it doesn't (Bahrain) and I am not happy. In those cases I hope that the US will use its pressure to achieve positive change in the region, much like how it once did in South-Korea. I will be the first to say that the US should dedicate itself to the goal of spreading democracy to each nation that it can, but that is easier said than done. On the inside it faces people that prefer a more machivellian approach, on the outside it faces dictators that might be friendly, but have no intention of really following up on their promise to turn their nations into democracies. For as powerfull as the US might be, it isn't as powerfull as people tend to make it out to be. It still has to deal with the realities of the world that they inhabit. Not every country has a George Washington that will give away his position of power. Many dictators only care for their own position, or they have some twisted view that they might be bad, but they aren't the worst. Some, like Saddam, simply don't give a fuck about anything other than their own position. I don't know all too much about Bahrain, but if I recall, the ruling power are the religious minority. That makes it very difficult to push them towards democracy. Things like Sunni/Shia are very big in the middle-east. It is hard to convince the ruling power to establish a democracy when they feel they are outnumbered and fear that, if the aren't the criminals, they will be the victims. These people are not just puppets to the US. They are living human beings that have their own interests and motivations. It isn't so simple that the US can just call them up and order them to make a democracy. But I agree that the US should keep pressuring these countries into democractic reforms.
TLDR: The difference is overthrowing Syria is in my own personal interest.
Note. + Show Spoiler +Saddam was our boy, before he wasn't. Perhaps sway with a list of non-US endorsed psychopaths
|
On March 22 2012 04:44 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2012 04:15 zalz wrote:On March 22 2012 03:13 BioNova wrote:It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better Have you been in the Bahrain thread lately? What is the difference between Syrian Civilians, and protestors in Bahrain. If we were giving Assad 50 mill in small arms(like Obama to Bahrain) to put down the rebellion, then what? The dreaded two thumbs up from Zalz? mwuhah Edit, grammer, crazy here today I never said that the US was beyond error. End of the day they do play realpolitiks, something that I don't support in the slightest. But at times that lines up with my convictions (like in Syria) and I am content. Other times it doesn't (Bahrain) and I am not happy. In those cases I hope that the US will use its pressure to achieve positive change in the region, much like how it once did in South-Korea. I will be the first to say that the US should dedicate itself to the goal of spreading democracy to each nation that it can, but that is easier said than done. On the inside it faces people that prefer a more machivellian approach, on the outside it faces dictators that might be friendly, but have no intention of really following up on their promise to turn their nations into democracies. For as powerfull as the US might be, it isn't as powerfull as people tend to make it out to be. It still has to deal with the realities of the world that they inhabit. Not every country has a George Washington that will give away his position of power. Many dictators only care for their own position, or they have some twisted view that they might be bad, but they aren't the worst. Some, like Saddam, simply don't give a fuck about anything other than their own position. I don't know all too much about Bahrain, but if I recall, the ruling power are the religious minority. That makes it very difficult to push them towards democracy. Things like Sunni/Shia are very big in the middle-east. It is hard to convince the ruling power to establish a democracy when they feel they are outnumbered and fear that, if the aren't the criminals, they will be the victims. These people are not just puppets to the US. They are living human beings that have their own interests and motivations. It isn't so simple that the US can just call them up and order them to make a democracy. But I agree that the US should keep pressuring these countries into democractic reforms. TLDR: The difference is overthrowing Syria is in my own personal interest. Note. + Show Spoiler +Saddam was our boy, before he wasn't. Perhaps sway with a list of non-US endorsed psychopaths
Don't ask questions when your only response consists of mentioning facts that you think are obscure and secret, whilst in reality well documented, already known, and most crucial, irrelevant to the entire point.
It is like the only thing you read was Saddam and your brain shut off:
"He said Saddam, time to use the one thing I know about Saddam, who cares if it isn't relevant at all!"
I am more than happy to teach you a thing or two, but not if you display a complete inability to even read my posts, let alone give an accurate TLDR version.
But I should be flattered that you believe the downfall of any regime would be in my "personal" interest. Of course I am a major player on the world stage, benefitting personally from the rise and downfall of nations...
|
On March 22 2012 03:13 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +It is a bit of a sickening idea that the US should be held acountable for giving these people a fighting chance. Would you really be happier if Assad had been able to murder them without breaking a sweat? Would that be better Have you been in the Bahrain thread lately? What is the difference between Syrian Civilians, and protestors in Bahrain. If we were giving Assad 50 mill in small arms(like Obama to Bahrain) to put down the rebellion, then what? The dreaded two thumbs up from Zalz? mwuhah Edit, grammer, crazy here today
Yes, the U.S. is hypocritical when it comes to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Doesn't mean we can't be supportive when they get it right on occasion, like Syria.
On March 22 2012 04:15 zalz wrote:
I never said that the US was beyond error.
End of the day they do play realpolitiks, something that I don't support in the slightest.
But at times that lines up with my convictions (like in Syria) and I am content. Other times it doesn't (Bahrain) and I am not happy. In those cases I hope that the US will use its pressure to achieve positive change in the region, much like how it once did in South-Korea.
I'm hard pressed to see why people don't understand this. Yes, the U.S. government is imperial and plays power politics. Very occasionally, however, the course of those politics happens to actually line up with a people's interest, and we should recognize those instances in the hope of seeing real progress.
|
On March 21 2012 21:11 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 20:50 -Trippin- wrote:
There is nothing useful on wikileaks unless you know what you are looking for. If you ask me, it was probably just a ploy by the US government themselves to take attention off of what is really important, as in they want you to think some secret documents that revealed everything have been released, when in reality they reveal nothing. Yes, I realize that the moment I read about these documents, everything I ever knew and cared about, is gone. Someone I knew got hit by a car thist morning. I don't care, all I can think about are these secret documents. Thanks USA for brainwashing me.
Say I just murdered ten people, one hooker and nine important business me, and buried them all in my backyard then I come to you and I confess that I killed a hooker. There are nine more, but I only told you about one and you don't question me any further. I know there is a term for it, but what I am saying is that they are showing you irrelevant "secret" documents to make people think that all is revealed, when in reality there is much more and that much more is also what is actually important.
The funny thing is that it totally worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
