|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
The facts are USA , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Qatar , Turkey wants Assad dead for whatever reasons . While Russia , China , Lebanon , Jordan , Iraq and Iran support the Syrian government for their own reasons .
Just a minor note, but I was under the impression that most of the Arab nations, excluding some like Iraq and the new government in Egypt, were either opposed to the Syrian regime or neutral. Jordan has claimed to be neutral, but there's evidence that rebels have been receiving weapons supplies from across the Jordanian border, and Jordan seems to be tentatively supporting the idea of military action in response to the Ghouta attack:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23849587
(Interestingly, the map in the article labels Jordan as opposed to intervention, but the article itself seems to indicate otherwise.)
|
Life in Tibet before the Chinese invasion is a pretty hotly contested subject, if you're parroting the CCP line that Tibet was a feudal hellhole or if you're saying that Tibet was a mystical paradise before 1959 then you're BSing us.
|
On September 08 2013 16:30 Polis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 08:52 sam!zdat wrote:
why are you guys arguing about ethics? This is just the cold war, it has nothing to do with ethics Cold war was against communism, this war is against what? In this war terrorist are supported or flighted against. Islamist are more often supported then not.
the cold war was not 'against communism', the cold war was about two rival imperial powers, one of which called itself communist. Syria is about russia and the us vying for geopolitical position via proxy wars. It's the cold war.
edit: @above debbie displaying some uncharacteristic wisdom
|
On September 08 2013 17:13 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 16:30 Polis wrote:On September 08 2013 08:52 sam!zdat wrote:
why are you guys arguing about ethics? This is just the cold war, it has nothing to do with ethics Cold war was against communism, this war is against what? In this war terrorist are supported or flighted against. Islamist are more often supported then not. the cold war was not 'against communism', the cold war was about two rival imperial powers, one of which called itself communist. Syria is about russia and the us vying for geopolitical position via proxy wars. It's the cold war. edit: @above debbie displaying some uncharacteristic wisdom
Wherever it was against communism by proxy or not, it did fight against communism. If this war would be comparable to cold war then USA wouldn't support terrorist, or Islamist. Cold war had a clear stable ideological enemy, this war doesn't have it so comparisons aren't valid.
|
the us supported islamists in the cold war. All international muslim terrorists to date have come from us armed mujahideen who fought in the afghan theater against the soviets. (international meaning active outside their own country)
the fact that it was against communism is just because our imperial enemy was 'communist'. That's not the important thing about the cold war. The important thing was russia vs us. This is russia vs us, it's a proxy war, it's the cold war. The cold war didn't end it just thawed for a bit. We're back at it. The fact that now it's oligarchs instead of bolsheviks doesn't change anything
|
On September 08 2013 17:31 sam!zdat wrote:
the us supported islamists in the cold war. All international muslim terrorists to date have come from us armed mujahideen who fought in the afghan theater against the soviets. (international meaning active outside their own country)
Because they were at war against communist then not against Islamist (like they should be now), your point?
On September 08 2013 17:31 sam!zdat wrote:the fact that it was against communism is just because our imperial enemy was 'communist'. That's not the important thing about the cold war. The important thing was russia vs us. This is russia vs us, it's a proxy war, it's the cold war. The cold war didn't end it just thawed for a bit. We're back at it. The fact that now it's oligarchs instead of bolsheviks doesn't change anything
No you are wrong, it was also important that USA did fight against ideology, and didn't side with any communist countries Russia wasn't the only communist country, and that had important consequences.
USA used to fight with Nazist ideology, and with communist ideology, the reason why are irrelevant to that fact. Now they don't fight for any positive change in ideology. If change in the ideology was they primary goal, or just coincidental correlation is completely unimportant as that would be the same in practice anyway.
|
edit: @above debbie displaying some uncharacteristic wisdom
through sheer force of martial character fascists are able to achieve triumphs of the will and arrive at wisdom occasionally
the cold war was not 'against communism', the cold war was about two rival imperial powers, one of which called itself communist.
sami now you know you're being a little too cute here, the cold war was about two rival ideologies one of which identified itself as communist and genuinely believed that it was communist and one of which identified itself as anti-communist and genuinely believed that what it was fighting against was communism
Syria is about russia and the us vying for geopolitical position via proxy wars. It's the cold war.
not quite but close
syria is about the liberal internationalist order aka the US and Europe wanting to maintain and extend the liberal internationalist order because they perceive that as being in their self interest and more broadly in the interest of the world because the stability the liberal internationalist order ostensibly strives for has a "rising tide lifts all boats" belief underpinning it
Russia gives 0 fucks about the liberal internationalist order because they rightly perceive it as inimical to their interest in regaining their (relatively recent) historical control and influence over eastern and southeastern europe, central asia and the northern parts of the middle east. plus the nazis really gave the russian psyche a beating they're still very wary of not having a zone of friendly compliant buffer states in between them and whoever might in their nightmares want to do another drive for moscow. can't really blame them for that but they want to have their peace of mind at our expense and that ain't gonna fly.
the us supported islamists in the cold war. All international muslim terrorists to date have come from us armed mujahideen who fought in the afghan theater against the soviets. (international meaning active outside their own country)
thats bullshit and you know it is
more international terrorists have come out of the qutbist / muslim brotherhood / egyptian islamic jihad breeding ground than the muhajideen of 1980s afghanistan most of whom ended up becoming the northern alliance
more international terrorists have come out of the saudi wahhabi factory than 80s afghanistan
more international terrorists came out of the PLO-KGB pipeline than 80s afghanistan
you're running off the rails again sami i guess bullshitting that the US created osama bin laden isn't enough we actually had to have created every international muslim terrorist ever chill out samipanda the agitprop printing press in your brain is overloading here
|
the other communist countries were part of the soviet sphere of influence. That's what we were afraid of. The only exception is china after kruschev pissed them off and they distanced themselves from kremlin. and then we used that to establish rapprochement with china. It's not about ideology it's about imperial spheres of influence, it's just that each empire had an ideology that went along with it so a superficial analysis will say that it is a fight about ideology. It's no more about ideology than romans vs persians is about jupiter vs zoroaster. It's just the logic of empire.
you said 'if this were like cold war the us would not support islamists'. My point is that the us supported islamist rebels against russia then, and it is supporting islamist rebels against russia now. So it's the same.
|
On September 08 2013 17:48 sam!zdat wrote:
the other communist countries were part of the soviet sphere of influence. That's what we were afraid of. The only exception is china after kruschev pissed them off and they distanced themselves from kremlin. and then we used that to establish rapprochement with china. It's not about ideology it's about imperial spheres of influence, it's just that each empire had an ideology that went along with it so a superficial analysis will say that it is a fight about ideology. It's no more about ideology than romans vs persians is about jupiter vs zoroaster. It's just the logic of empire.
you said 'if this were like cold war the us would not support islamists'. My point is that the us supported islamist rebels against russia then, and it is supporting islamist rebels against russia now. So it's the same.
I agree. Pushing Russia out of the mediterranean and leaving them only with Iran as an ally in the region is a win for the US.
|
meh, arguing about the origin of terrorists is just throwing out claims, that's what my book said and I have no reason to believe you over it. Certainly we were allies with and funded bin laden in afghanistan.
certainly we have pumped an enormous amount of arms and money into the region that are now being used against us.
|
the other communist countries were part of the soviet sphere of influence
being ruled direct from moscow is not being part of a sphere of influence its being a step past being part of a sphere of influence
That's what we were afraid of.
yes we were afraid of being ruled direct from moscow
It's not about ideology it's about imperial spheres of influence,
oh bullshit who are you to deny people their own motivations because they don't suit your narrative
it's just that each empire had an ideology that went along with it so a superficial analysis will say that it is a fight about ideology.
and a faux-sophisticated analysis will counterintuitively deny the relevance of what the people at the time actually believed because the faux-sophisticate has an axe to grind
It's no more about ideology than romans vs persians is about jupiter vs zoroaster. It's just the logic of empire.
it's the banality of your analysis is what it is
romans vs persians took place over a period of history where ideological conflict was almost unheard of other than the insular superiority complex of judaism at the time and of course the rather limited struggle between republicanism and autocracy in rome.
and then proselytizing, ideologically aggressive christianity happened and ideology took center stage where it has remained
if you want to claim that that has not changed over the last 2,500 years because it suits your need to protect marx from the shittiness of the USSR fine but don't expect people to believe such simplistic anti-intellectual nonsense
meh, arguing about the origin of terrorists is just throwing out claims, that's what my book said and I have no reason to believe you over it. Certainly we were allies with and funded bin laden in afghanistan.
no it is not just throwing out claims. there is not and could not possibly be a link between muhajideen in afghanistan in the 1980s and the fedayeen of the 1950s or the PLO of the 1960s and 1970s or the egyptian islamists who assassinated sadat. there's the little problem of time machines not existing so your book is full of shit and you should find less shitty books.
no evidence whatsoever that the US either directly or indirectly funded osama bin laden in afghanistan or even had any contact with them. there isn't even any proof that the ISI did either. it's all just "throwing out claims." bin laden was independently wealthy and got his allies and funding from the arabian peninsula there's actual evidence of that. but hey some book said something. you're a waste of the 1% goddamn it's sad seeing all the anti-intellectual stubborn 3year oldness you're tossing out here for us to see.
|
spheres of influence just a quibble
not going to debunk idealist philosophy of history or argue with you about marx. Goodnight
|
spheres of influence just a quibble
wonder why they have the term puppet state then if it's just a quibble as to whether you are one or whether you're in a sphere of influence
not going to debunk idealist philosophy of history or argue with you about marx. Goodnight
go home but don't take the ball that's not your ball
we don't redistribute the wealth of sporting goods here
|
one last thought. If you think ideological allegiance primary motive force of conflict, perhaps instructive to consider case of ho chi min
|
On September 08 2013 18:16 sam!zdat wrote:
one last thought. If you think ideological allegiance primary motive force of conflict, perhaps instructive to consider case of ho chi min
nothing in this area is absolute of course and i feel embarrassed for you that i have to say that
perhaps instructive for you to consider the case of jesus of nazareth
or muhammad of mecca
or john calvin of whatever town in france he came from i forget the name at the moment and don't wanna look it up
or even perhaps karl of marx
or rather, not these men specifically but just what exactly they unleashed on the world
|
America, Al-Qaeda's air force and Isreal's dog.
But hey, it will distract from all the lying about spying, plus it's good for business right?
Given all the mixed messages being sent from the Obama administration, it's clear that the bumbling accommodator-in-chief is simply reacting to various pressures and has no actual strategic plan.
What happens when a retaliatory anti-ship missile attack sinks a destroyer? Boots on the ground? Iraq 2.0? Vietnam 3.0?
|
this is one of the reasons why the un must either impose human rights laws on rebels or stay out if the conflict and let them butcher themselves.having al quaeda terrorists masked as rebels come to power and slaughter christians is a bit unacceptable
|
On September 08 2013 18:09 sam!zdat wrote:
spheres of influence just a quibble
not going to debunk idealist philosophy of history or argue with you about marx. Goodnight
Both in my personal and professional thinking, one of the most useful passages I keep has been this from Tocqueville:
One of the distinguishing characteristics of a democratic period is the taste all men have at such ties for easy success and present enjoyment. This occurs in the pursuits of the intellect as well as in all others. Most of those who live at a time of equality are full of an ambition at once aspiring and relaxed: they would fain succeed brilliantly and at once, but they would be dispensed from great efforts to obtain success. These conflicting tendencies lead straight to the research of general ideas, by aid of which they flatter themselves that they can figure very importantly at a small expense, and draw the attention of the public with very little trouble. And I know not whether they be wrong in thinking thus. For their readers are as much averse to investigating anything to the bottom as they can be themselves; and what is generally sought in the productions of the mind is easy pleasure and information without labor.
The casual dilettante debater has just this awful proclivity. When confronted with a challenge to their facts, instead of pursuing research or investigation which may either improve or enhance your arguments, you fall back upon the fortification of some abstract doctrine which is impossible to either prove or disprove. The battlefield of the isms no gladiatorial contest; it draws no admiration, it produces no epiphanies, it tests no virtue. In this arena of the weak, you will thrash your arms against the four winds, and pretend to do by the largeness of your actions what you lack in skill or dexterity, and because the majority of your audience possesses no more skill than you have, they will mistake your wildness for excellence, and fancies you to be the thing at which you play.
Why is it that almost everything everyone has written about history in this thread has been wrong? Even when you are mostly right, you are wrong. You cannot restrain yourself to contemplate the cathartic nature of things, because doing so lacks the excitement of World Domination by the force of thought alone. In this sense all of you are the proverbial communists, terrorists, imperialists, ideologues, and whatever else you purport to be against. 
|
On September 08 2013 20:10 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2013 18:09 sam!zdat wrote:
spheres of influence just a quibble
not going to debunk idealist philosophy of history or argue with you about marx. Goodnight Both in my personal and professional thinking, one of the most useful passages I keep has been this from Tocqueville: Show nested quote +One of the distinguishing characteristics of a democratic period is the taste all men have at such ties for easy success and present enjoyment. This occurs in the pursuits of the intellect as well as in all others. Most of those who live at a time of equality are full of an ambition at once aspiring and relaxed: they would fain succeed brilliantly and at once, but they would be dispensed from great efforts to obtain success. These conflicting tendencies lead straight to the research of general ideas, by aid of which they flatter themselves that they can figure very importantly at a small expense, and draw the attention of the public with very little trouble. And I know not whether they be wrong in thinking thus. For their readers are as much averse to investigating anything to the bottom as they can be themselves; and what is generally sought in the productions of the mind is easy pleasure and information without labor. The casual dilettante debater has just this awful proclivity. When confronted with a challenge to their facts, instead of pursuing research or investigation which may either improve or enhance your arguments, you fall back upon the fortification of some abstract doctrine which is impossible to either prove or disprove. The battlefield of the isms no gladiatorial contest; it draws no admiration, it produces no epiphanies, it tests no virtue. In this arena of the weak, you will thrash your arms against the four winds, and pretend to do by the largeness of your actions what you lack in skill or dexterity, and because the majority of your audience possesses no more skill than you have, they will mistake your wildness for excellence, and fancies you to be the thing at which you play. Why is it that almost everything everyone has written about history in this thread has been wrong? Even when you are mostly right, you are wrong. You cannot restrain yourself to contemplate the cathartic nature of things, because doing so lacks the excitement of World Domination by the force of thought alone. In this sense all of you are the proverbial communists, terrorists, imperialists, ideologues, and whatever else you purport to be against.
I have absolutely no idea what you just wrote , but i guess it's a fancy post to say that he doesn't have the time or nerve to argue with other idiots on the internet ...
|
On September 08 2013 20:27 raga4ka wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what you just wrote , but i guess it's a fancy post to say that he doesn't have the time or nerve to argue with other idiots on the internet ...
That's okay, sam!dzat will understand, and as Mr. Obama in his better days would have said: "The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind." Therefore let us not permit the prejudices of democracy to lead us to value things only in the aggregate!
Oh, my annoyance at thoughtless falsification by casual debaters in a field in which I claim some knowledge will by no means restrict my own thoughtless falsifications in fields where I am the ignorant hedonist. Because the emergence from idiocy cannot occur but by repeated acts of idiocy, that which we call prejudice, supposition and idle speculation are as important in cultivation of the intellect as disciplined research. It is by fanaticism that the mind can be excited to its full vigour, and in our modern society, political passions have a power in that quarter second only to romantic love. As Tocqueville said of his broad-thinking subjects: "I know not whether they be wrong in thinking thus."
And let us give some credit to the notion that as a psychological phenomenon, the ideological cleavage and the "logic of empire" are two plausible "large interpretations" one can make of it. Neither essentially explains its origins, its conduct, its ending, or the issues which were held by it in the balance. It is inaccurate in drawing continuities between Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower, or between Stalin, Khurshchev and Brezhnev. It is inaccurate to draw a similarity of purpose or design between the Stalin of 1945 and the Stalin of 1952, or to pretend that the proximate arguments which saw its beginnings were the same as those which saw its end. In a serious discussion, all of these things can and would be discussed without resorting to bromides about Marx or John Calvin.
One fundamental thing I would like to remind everyone of however, is something so obvious that I hesitate to say it: the Cold War did not begin in 1945 but in 1947. Its catalyst was not the end of the Second World War but the failure of the post-war arrangements in Europe. In between was a transition where both sides began to mobilise themselves, not so much militarily, as psychologically, in shifting away from their wartime perceptions of the other.
The relationship between the United States and "Arab terrorism" has a comparably fractured history. One of the nuggets of information I stumbled upon in my research was the proxy war conducted between the CIA and the British SAS along the Saudi-Omani frontier during the Eisenhower-Dulles administration. The covert American push to displace British power in the Middle East preceded Suez, and the CIA from the beginning were not averse to channeling proxy acts of violence to precipitate this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
