|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 09 2013 06:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Come on guys the US bombed Serbia because it was embarrassing as hell for Western Europe to have Kosovars massacring Serbs in ambushes and terrorist attacks and Serbs massacring Kosovars in mass shootings. Especially after the Bosnia mess took so long to end and Europe was pretty inactive about it at first. Behind closed doors Western Europe basically begged the US to have NATO intervene to end the whole thing as quickly as possible. There was a lot of mockery of Europe that they couldn't prevent ethnic cleansing in their own back yard and perceived pressure on European governments to do *something* about it.
US "reluctance" was way overplayed and was more for domestic reasons than anything else. This was right after the NATO enlargement that Russia strongly opposed. European countries may have had more direct reasons to intervene but undermining an unfriendly dictator, who happened to be Russia's ally, fit pretty well into US policy too.
|
On September 09 2013 08:12 dsousa wrote:
If you don't believe what the US government tells you, you are into "CONSPIRACIES"
If you do believe..... LMAO I don't even know anymore.... how can anyone believe anything those guys say after the NSA mess. Which by the way was a "wacky conspiracy" 2 months ago, but now is fact.
Disregarding Syria for a bit, I believe most people fall somewhere in the gray area between "don't believe anything" and "believe everything". However, the government isn't helping its case towards American(global?) trust with much of the current information and, most importantly, credible historic data available.
Also, most idiots use the term 'conspiracy' loosely and it has become this go to argumentative trump card that people look to when there isn't much substance to their own arguments, especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the state.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
okay, the lesson from the albania detour is that pernicious conspiracies are often conjured up against people you hate, no matter if they really are so powerful. le albanians control the world, jeez.
that should be enough for that. back to syria lol
|
On September 09 2013 09:09 oneofthem wrote:
okay, the lesson from the albania detour is that pernicious conspiracies are often conjured up against people you hate, no matter if they really are so powerful. le albanians control the world, jeez.
that should be enough for that. back to syria lol
Albania has some of the biggest organised crime in the world...
They control a large part of the heroin market and even the arms market and human trafficking (you can google this fact.
Seriously do some research first before you make comments like that.
Also, your attitude is just really disrespectful. Wonder if you act like that in real life to. But guess thats the internet for you.
|
If the large scale rioting in Greece leads to a popular movement trying to actively overthrow the government and essential civil war, would the US go and bomb Greece?
Or any country, for that matter? If there were reports of human rights abuses in the UK, would the US go and bomb the UK?
|
On September 09 2013 09:53 Larkin wrote:
If the large scale rioting in Greece leads to a popular movement trying to actively overthrow the government and essential civil war, would the US go and bomb Greece?
Or any country, for that matter? If there were reports of human rights abuses in the UK, would the US go and bomb the UK?
I think there's a difference between civil war and the government killing its own people for protesting, and then leading to a "civil" war in which you can't tell how many people truly support Assad (based on his Alawite background its probably a minority, though he has the military for support plus Iran and Russia).
So probably no to the Greece situation. Similarly with human rights abuses. The US has intervened thus far in countries where dictators were brutally murdering their own people in the thousands, i.e. something more along the lines of a crime against humanity. I think the only reason they didn't intervene in Syria earlier was because America isn't really the world policeman as much as it tries to uphold its moral values, and the American public get war weary.
But I think you can see that when things get bad enough the US once again has to come to the aid of civilians. I think there are some very good questions about whether that might make things worse though, would be interesting to hear Obama's response to that.
But if they weren't war weary, and Britain turned into a dictatorship that started massacring its protesters and unleashing small quantities of chemical weapons, I honestly think that the US would do something - they're more an ally to the British people than the British government.
|
On September 09 2013 10:19 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 09:53 Larkin wrote:
If the large scale rioting in Greece leads to a popular movement trying to actively overthrow the government and essential civil war, would the US go and bomb Greece?
Or any country, for that matter? If there were reports of human rights abuses in the UK, would the US go and bomb the UK? I think there's a difference between civil war and the government killing its own people for protesting, and then leading to a "civil" war in which you can't tell how many people truly support Assad (based on his Alawite background its probably a minority, though he has the military for support plus Iran and Russia). So probably no to the Greece situation. Similarly with human rights abuses. The US has intervened thus far in countries where dictators were brutally murdering their own people in the thousands, i.e. something more along the lines of a crime against humanity. I think the only reason they didn't intervene in Syria earlier was because America isn't really the world policeman as much as it tries to uphold its moral values, and the American public get war weary. But I think you can see that when things get bad enough the US once again has to come to the aid of civilians. I think there are some very good questions about whether that might make things worse though, would be interesting to hear Obama's response to that. But if they weren't war weary, and Britain turned into a dictatorship that started massacring its protesters and unleashing small quantities of chemical weapons, I honestly think that the US would do something - they're more an ally to the British people than the British government.
I read somewhere that the balance for Assad support is about 40% of the country, 60% of the population, owing to the larger cities being in his control (though that doesn't mean they actually support him).
So if the US is eager to save people, why do they continue to ignore not only their own people but people all over the world who are suffering? Does it have to be when a dictator starts massacring its own people for it to matter? Does the nation have to be at least in the Second World, meaning that African nations are just ignored (see: Mali conflict, Tuareg rebellions).
I just wish there was a coherant foreign policy from the US. Obviously I can understanding wanting to stop collateral damage (if it can still really be called that), but it can't just continue to pick and choose the nations it intervenes in to overthrow a regime and the ones it doesn't.
|
]On September 09 2013 09:09 Bayyne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 08:12 dsousa wrote:
If you don't believe what the US government tells you, you are into "CONSPIRACIES"
If you do believe..... LMAO I don't even know anymore.... how can anyone believe anything those guys say after the NSA mess. Which by the way was a "wacky conspiracy" 2 months ago, but now is fact. Disregarding Syria for a bit, I believe most people fall somewhere in the gray area between "don't believe anything" and "believe everything". However, the government isn't helping its case towards American(global?) trust with much of the current information and, most importantly, credible historic data available. Also, most idiots use the term 'conspiracy' loosely and it has become this go to argumentative trump card that people look to when there isn't much substance to their own arguments, especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the state.
If people actually did their research its rather easy to tell which are false conspiracies from the fake ones, at least with a 70-90% chance ratio. People just need to start using their brains.
Edit, I hope this is allowed and not considered one of those jokes pictures but it's funny how politicians twist issues to suit their needs. I need another one for the military coup not being a military coup in egypt.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ySpqkjx.jpg)
|
On September 09 2013 11:06 sekritzzz wrote:] Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 09:09 Bayyne wrote:On September 09 2013 08:12 dsousa wrote:
If you don't believe what the US government tells you, you are into "CONSPIRACIES"
If you do believe..... LMAO I don't even know anymore.... how can anyone believe anything those guys say after the NSA mess. Which by the way was a "wacky conspiracy" 2 months ago, but now is fact. Disregarding Syria for a bit, I believe most people fall somewhere in the gray area between "don't believe anything" and "believe everything". However, the government isn't helping its case towards American(global?) trust with much of the current information and, most importantly, credible historic data available. Also, most idiots use the term 'conspiracy' loosely and it has become this go to argumentative trump card that people look to when there isn't much substance to their own arguments, especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the state. If people actually did their research its rather easy to tell which are false conspiracies from the fake ones, at least with a 70-90% chance ratio. People just need to start using their brains. Edit, I hope this is allowed and not considered one of those jokes pictures but it's funny how politicians twist issues to suit their needs. I need another one for the military coup not being a military coup in egypt.
you're very right this refusal to call war war is not only dishonest it's an assertion of unimpeachable superiority
i'm not going to war with you, that would imply some kind of equality between us. nope, i am going to police action or limited airstrike you because that denies you have any kind of reciprocal right to respond. everyone understands that in war even if one side is "good" and one side is "bad" that both sides have the right to strike at each other and try to win.
but if you're on the receiving end of "limited airstrikes" or a police action because it's been declared you need to be punished, that is also saying that you deserve it and it would be another punishable act by you to even try to fight back. because your legitimacy is zero because you did this or that or whatever. we're very much obviously of superior status than you so sit down and take your licks.
|
yes. Weapons of weak: terrorism. Weapons of strong: intervention
|
On September 09 2013 13:04 sam!zdat wrote:
yes. Weapons of weak: terrorism. Weapons of strong: intervention
actually both the weak and the strong seem to prefer to use explosives 
|
ours cost about 10000x as much though... Ah well, good for the economy I suppose, always useful to blow up expensive stuff
|
Schedule for the debate on Syria:
MONDAY
President Obama is scheduled to be interviewed by a half-dozen broadcast and cable networks (NOTE: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, CNN). Congress resumes work after its summer break and a classified briefing for House members is set. Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, plans to discuss Syria in a speech at the New America Foundation and meet with the Congressional Black Caucus.
TUESDAY
Obama's chief of staff Denis McDonough to meet with House Democratic Caucus, whose support could be crucial as the president faces opposition within the Republican majority. Obama scheduled to make a national TV address at 9 p.m. from the White House.
WEDNESDAY
Likely first showdown vote in the Senate over a resolution that would authorize "limited and specified use" of U.S. armed forces against Syria for no more than 90 days and bar ground troops from combat. A final vote is expected at week's end. The administration is expected to hold a classified briefing for senators.
WEEK OF SEPT. 16
A House vote appears likely.
Source.
|
Obama's going to talk on all sorts of cable networks, but will Americans listen? Do their people's representatives have a compelling case to listen? This is coming from a man fond of talk, averse to action. Committing himself to talking more about it is akin to patiently waiting for the same rehashed stuff (while playing online poker). The schedule is ho hum. Apart from some massive change in the status quo, both houses defeat intervention.
|
On September 09 2013 07:41 SupplyBlockedTV wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 07:18 Derez wrote:On September 09 2013 06:50 SupplyBlockedTV wrote:On September 09 2013 06:35 Rassy wrote:On September 09 2013 03:15 oneofthem wrote:well, on the question of whether chain of command is an excuse, that would probably depend on international law traditions, of which i don't know much lol, so i can't comment. the situation though is not being resolved through a international criminal court system, as some have argued it should be. http://crookedtimber.org/2013/09/07/assad-and-the-icc/it's clear that U.S.'s interest in syria and its neighbors is largely motivated by oil, but that does not mean this particular incident with chemical weapons is purely the operation of oil grab logic. it might be that their reasons are more multiple goals oriented, rather than simply 'grab dat oil' Syria doesnt have that much oil and with the scale oil boom in the usa the usa doesnt need the oil that badly annymore. There is more to this then just oil. Its weird to read about sunite extremists and moderate shiites on the internet btw. The sunites are alot more moderate then the shiites in general. This propaganda machine is thriving on the complete lack of knowledge people have these days. I do believe the story of the poster from macedonia btw,that the nato supported albanians, i just dont think they did that because they where given a few million dollars from albanian rich familys.Annyway:what do people here expect will happen? I myself am now quiet positive that assad will stay in power for at least the remaining part of 2013. Annyone thinking this 3 day strike (if it will happen wich i doubt) will have anny significant effect in changing the balance of forces? Never said thats the only reason. But believe it or not, running as president in america costs more then any of you will probably see together in your life, many of the big figures get funded by individuals outside the US. Politics arnt as innocent and fair as you think it is, and this may look like its from a Hollywood movie, but its probably closer to the truth then the story of humanitarian intervention. An assertion for which you have offered 0 proof. You can't have a debate on the basis of 'someone told me but I can't tell you who' and it's highly off topic in the first place. The amount of conspiracy posts in this thread is insane. Thats true. I can see where you are coming from. But 1st: I cannot call names because who i speak of works at the highest levels in conflict areas. And if a "rumor" like this somehow gets linked to his name it would be kind of bad for his career, even though the chances of that are slim in a place like this, i do not want to harm his integrity. So you cannot ask of me to disclose more on this then i have already done. If you think im lying then so be it, i have better things to do then waste my time with lies. second: Nor do you have anything to disprove me. third: I just wanted to share something, if people here want to portray me as a paranoid conspiracy theorist, then that tells more about you then me. I know the person from who i got these claims knows alot more on these subjects then all the knowledge of teamliquid combined, because he has been working in balkan countries for more then a decade, after he finished a successful political career. This is offtopic, i know, what i wanted to say with my very first post: some actions arnt purely from a humanitarian viewpoint. Now im done trying to defend myself, i really gain nothing from that but frustration, and i have nothing to prove here because i have my own experiences to draw on, and you can call it bullshit all you want, i really dont care man. Show nested quote +On September 09 2013 07:30 Zeo wrote:http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/benworks/buying.htmlAs the collapse of Yugoslavia loomed, the Croatian and Albanian lobbies continued their campaign: Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, Mar 31, 1993 issue, reported as much as $50 million was larded around Capitol Hill in a two-year period which saw the defeat of George Bush and led to Bob Dole's control of the Republican party: The United States Congress, still reeling from a series of financial scandals involving representatives and senators, is now bracing for a new problem: the massive financial "contributions" which have been made to election funds of politicians by Croatian sources over the past two to three years. One Congressional investigator told Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy that the donations and expenditures on Washington lobbying by the Croatians over the past two years "could well exceed $50-million." @zeo thanks for the intresting link
Oh noes, i definatly dont want to portray you as a crazy conspiracy believer.
I have seen enough of the world to know that manny conspiracys have some truth in them and just because something is a conspiracy theory doesnt mean that it isnt true!. I definatly dont think that politicians are innocent and fair lol, And some of my own believes could be classified as a conspiracy theory as well.
But 50m $ to buy an operation that cost like 1b $ + seems a bit of a weird deal but as you said it wasnt the only reason.
|
On September 09 2013 12:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
you're very right this refusal to call war war is not only dishonest it's an assertion of unimpeachable superiority
i'm not going to war with you, that would imply some kind of equality between us. nope, i am going to police action or limited airstrike you because that denies you have any kind of reciprocal right to respond. everyone understands that in war even if one side is "good" and one side is "bad" that both sides have the right to strike at each other and try to win.
but if you're on the receiving end of "limited airstrikes" or a police action because it's been declared you need to be punished, that is also saying that you deserve it and it would be another punishable act by you to even try to fight back. because your legitimacy is zero because you did this or that or whatever. we're very much obviously of superior status than you so sit down and take your licks.
I don't agree with that DEB.
The US would not be being "disrespectful" with any limited airstrike. They would be responding to a violation of international law, that multiple nations have agreed upon, and that represent as best we can the combined morals of the world. In this case that is certainly true even outside of European Influence. We are trying to police the world in a sense but its hardly disrespectful. It would be more disrespectful to shun human dignity, ignore the chemical weapons, and turn away when we have the ability to at least discourage such acts.
The difficult decision is how much can we help before we are causing harm? because even a limited airstrike could encourage Assad push the weapons out of syria into the hands of other diffuse organizations.
To go to war is not something that would go well for us. If we thought it would be effective at creating a stable democracy in Syria we damn well might go and do it, especially now when the country is seemingly in a state of anarchy. We know by now that trying to occupy a country that is not our own, without invitation, is hazardous at best.
So while there may be dilemmas, disrespecting the state vs disrespecting the people is hardly one of them.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
|
|
|
On September 09 2013 17:53 zatic wrote:
Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
I think both branches need to agree for legislation to pass.Then again Obama already bombed Libya without congressional approval - a war criminal can be unpredictable but I think the strike is on, congressional approval or not.
|
On September 09 2013 17:53 zatic wrote:
Can someone explain what it would mean to Obama if the Senate agrees to military action, but the House doesn't (which seems likely at this point). I understand the Senate has more weight on international issues, could Obama get away with arguing Senate approval is enough to back up a strike on Assad?
As iPlaY.NettleS already suggested, both the House and the Senate must get a majority in favour for BILL to pass Congress. Of course Obama can argue a lot of things, but there will not be a bill he can point to which says that the Syria strike is authorized. The Senate voting for it alone has as much clout as a show of hands. It's nice, but it doesn't take much to get a Senate that is made up of his own party to show their hands in a non-binding manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
