|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
If you made your posts less obviously biased, maybe people would take them more seriously. You sound like a politician or religious zealot trying to garner support by using incendiary words instead of facts or logic.
To be honest, it is no worse than official and non-official rhetoric made in the West about Assad. "Brutal Dictator who mercilessly slaughters his own people," etc, as if we really believe that the President of Syria is motivated by a fetishistic sadism. It's no more a psychological reality than "bloodthirsty America." In anguish we see the content of our own sufferings reflected in the character of our enemies.
Think of the malicious gossip of women during the agonies of romantic rejection!
|
On September 10 2013 01:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:The purpose of sending arbitrary ultimata in such instances where a great power molests a minuscule opponent, the purpose is not in the spirit of compromise, but is merely a measure in an ongoing process of tactical escalations. At the risk of outrunning my own historical metaphor, here is what the Romans did when the Carthaginians handed over their arms and defenses: Show nested quote +Consul Lucius Marcius Censorinus said to the Carthaginian envoys:"Your ready obedience up to this point, Carthaginians, in the matter of the hostages and the arms, is worthy of all praise. In cases of necessity we must not multiply words. Bear bravely the remaining commands of the Senate. Yield Carthage to us, and betake yourselves where you like within your own territory at a distance of at least fifteen kilometers from the sea, for we are resolved to raze your city to the ground."
While he was yet speaking, the Carthaginians lifted their hands toward heaven with loud cries, and called on the gods as avengers of violated faith. They heaped reproaches on the Romans, as if willing to die, or insane, or determined to provoke the Romans to sacrilegious violence to ambassadors. They flung themselves on the ground and beat it with their hands and heads. Some of them even tore their clothes and lacerated their flesh as though they were absolutely bereft of their senses. After the first frenzy was past there was great silence and prostration as of men lying dead.
In Syria, I think the parallel is apt. In the first place, the United States would gain greatly if she could obtain in Syria the same results by mere threats what she would otherwise enforce at her own expense. Should threatening fail, the United States would benefit from a boon in the legitimacy of such a strike, as in the tradition of the Second Hague Conference, all military action must be preceded by either a declaration of war, or the issuance of an ultimatum, the rejection of which was an automatic catalyst to war. In the third place, the partial acceptance of some ultimata would enfeeble the remaining powers of resistance once the accumulated pressure produced a situation where the intended target had no choice but to resist. Therefore I think Assad giving up his chemical weapons would be a tremendous strategic error. It would by no means disarm the tenacity of his enemies. It would produce no echo of sympathy among the Western public, who are apt to forget such gestures of compliance momentarily. It would throw away much of his feeble means of deterrence. It would negatively influence the domestic anti-war arguments in the West, to the extent that Assad's very possession of chemical weapons is a reason not to back him into a suicidal corner. Kerry was quite right when he said that he had no expectations of compliance from the Syrian government, because he himself had no intentions of making a serious offer.
The comparison is apt but if Carthage had the Huns behind their back and all of the mediteranian watching things could have been different. There will never be a good reason for Syria to ever contemplate giving up their stash of CW (next demand would be to stop using artillery or airstrikes on "civilian targets" which would of course fail).
But it's an unreasonable request which is brilliant for making the US seem unreasonable.
If Syria say they tried it is up to the US to show that they both failed and that the request was reasonable. Which will of course give Russia a perfect opportunity to disagree.
Either the request is then ammended untill it is reasonable (which defeats the whole purpose of the ploy) or the US pays the price (in many different "currencies") and attacks, which was their option all along.
Putins support stops the moment the first cruise missile flies but untill then I have no doubt he will turn the once ripe Syrian plum as bitter as he possibly can and this move just plays right into his hand.
Of course the US could just fill both his hands with gold so he cant hold them above Assad anymore but thats just another price to pay.
|
Obama didn't just drop the ball on this one he passed the ball to Putin. This has been one of the most ridiculously smart moves I've ever seen in international politics. Kerry says some off-the-cuff rhetoric and Russia/Assad immediately seize the opportunity to completely absolve Syria from any blame/punishment for the 21 august attack and any possible future attack.
|
If I don't see something hilarious in tonight's daily show or colbert's report I'm going to be so disappointed.
|
On September 10 2013 03:22 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
If I don't see something hilarious in tonight's daily show or colbert's report I'm going to be so disappointed.
their writers might need more lead time, i think tomorrow night is the safer bet
|
|
|
All I know is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are none too happy with this acquiescence.
|
On September 10 2013 03:28 farvacola wrote:
All I know is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are none too happy with this acquiescence.
Ya, Saudi Arabia is essentially at war with Syria too.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/21/saudi-inmates-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629/
The US/Israel/Saudi Arabia have done everything but officially declare war.
In the world that we common people live in, we are not at war, instead we are in negotiations in the United Nations.
In the real world, the covert world that the government doesn't let us in on, we are at war with Syria already. If someone conspired and supported enemies of the US like we support enemies of Syria, we'd call that war..
The public is like the children, they are being told last and getting taken along. Coaxed along!
|
It was quite convenient in this circumstance that the US was forced in the past weeks to exaggerate the completeness of its "knowledge" on the whereabouts and condition of Syria's CW arsenal. It makes the Russian-backed deal much more difficult to deflect.
|
If there were cooperation on the scale you hint at among the US and its regional allies, dsousa, things would look very different on this day.
|
Russia is playing this brilliantly. They are playing nice so as to further expose the US for its overt interests. They know they can't stop it, so at least expose it for what it is.
|
On September 10 2013 03:36 farvacola wrote:
If there were cooperation on the scale you hint at among the US and its regional allies, dsousa, things would look very different on this day.
I don't know of any cooperation, but I am confident that Saudi Arabia and Israel would not attack someone against US interests.
Which means if they attack someone the US at least tacitly has to support it.
|
You know, based on his decision to go to Congress and to agree with this turn of events, I wonder what Obama's original intent was. Doesn't really make much sense right now.
|
You can agree to give something up and then... not.
|
The funny thing is that for all the warmonger/cowboy talk everyone rattles on about Obama this problem would have been resolved much easier if he just started everything by firing first.
Attack happens the 21st and news starts leaking out. The 23rd the US launches 5 cruise missiles against command posts and Obama goes out with an announcement of CW, red lines and putting his foot down. Also something about talking to the international community about resolving this crisis.
Now Americans doesnt give a shit about cruise missiles being fired and strategically they do nothing but it would
a) cement American public opinion (of course Assad used CW we wouldnt bomb him if he didnt) ,
b) it would seriously scare Assad, because he can only assume more will follow if there are more strikes but he can hope he gets away if he plays nice.
c) it would come before Russia had time to act and put any burden of proof of a falseflag attack on Putin
d) put pressure on the international community (hey we acted but we dont want to play world police, are you guys just going to let this slip
e) give Obama and the US a very easy out. (I put my foot down about chemical weapons but the rest of the world doesnt want to intervene and its their fault)
Seriously as shown before no one gives a shit about cruIse missiles, targeted strikes or drone bombings but now its to late.
|
United States43978 Posts
On September 10 2013 03:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 01:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:The purpose of sending arbitrary ultimata in such instances where a great power molests a minuscule opponent, the purpose is not in the spirit of compromise, but is merely a measure in an ongoing process of tactical escalations. At the risk of outrunning my own historical metaphor, here is what the Romans did when the Carthaginians handed over their arms and defenses: Consul Lucius Marcius Censorinus said to the Carthaginian envoys:"Your ready obedience up to this point, Carthaginians, in the matter of the hostages and the arms, is worthy of all praise. In cases of necessity we must not multiply words. Bear bravely the remaining commands of the Senate. Yield Carthage to us, and betake yourselves where you like within your own territory at a distance of at least fifteen kilometers from the sea, for we are resolved to raze your city to the ground."
While he was yet speaking, the Carthaginians lifted their hands toward heaven with loud cries, and called on the gods as avengers of violated faith. They heaped reproaches on the Romans, as if willing to die, or insane, or determined to provoke the Romans to sacrilegious violence to ambassadors. They flung themselves on the ground and beat it with their hands and heads. Some of them even tore their clothes and lacerated their flesh as though they were absolutely bereft of their senses. After the first frenzy was past there was great silence and prostration as of men lying dead.
In Syria, I think the parallel is apt. In the first place, the United States would gain greatly if she could obtain in Syria the same results by mere threats what she would otherwise enforce at her own expense. Should threatening fail, the United States would benefit from a boon in the legitimacy of such a strike, as in the tradition of the Second Hague Conference, all military action must be preceded by either a declaration of war, or the issuance of an ultimatum, the rejection of which was an automatic catalyst to war. In the third place, the partial acceptance of some ultimata would enfeeble the remaining powers of resistance once the accumulated pressure produced a situation where the intended target had no choice but to resist. Therefore I think Assad giving up his chemical weapons would be a tremendous strategic error. It would by no means disarm the tenacity of his enemies. It would produce no echo of sympathy among the Western public, who are apt to forget such gestures of compliance momentarily. It would throw away much of his feeble means of deterrence. It would negatively influence the domestic anti-war arguments in the West, to the extent that Assad's very possession of chemical weapons is a reason not to back him into a suicidal corner. Kerry was quite right when he said that he had no expectations of compliance from the Syrian government, because he himself had no intentions of making a serious offer. The comparison is apt but if Carthage had the Huns behind their back and all of the mediteranian watching things could have been different. There will never be a good reason for Syria to ever contemplate giving up their stash of CW (next demand would be to stop using artillery or airstrikes on "civilian targets" which would of course fail). But it's an unreasonable request which is brilliant for making the US seem unreasonable. If Syria say they tried it is up to the US to show that they both failed and that the request was reasonable. Which will of course give Russia a perfect opportunity to disagree. Either the request is then ammended untill it is reasonable (which defeats the whole purpose of the ploy) or the US pays the price (in many different "currencies") and attacks, which was their option all along. Putins support stops the moment the first cruise missile flies but untill then I have no doubt he will turn the once ripe Syrian plum as bitter as he possibly can and this move just plays right into his hand. Of course the US could just fill both his hands with gold so he cant hold them above Assad anymore but thats just another price to pay.
There is a 700 year period between the Punic wars and the Huns.
Carthage was destroyed by Roman paranoia, warmongering and a pathological hate for any rival that would not submit.
|
Aww, come on KwarK, there's no fun in spoiling ahistorical analogies. Syria is Carthage, Assad is Hannibal, and Russia can be the Huns who are just a few hundred years too late.
|
On September 10 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2013 03:04 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On September 10 2013 01:44 MoltkeWarding wrote:The purpose of sending arbitrary ultimata in such instances where a great power molests a minuscule opponent, the purpose is not in the spirit of compromise, but is merely a measure in an ongoing process of tactical escalations. At the risk of outrunning my own historical metaphor, here is what the Romans did when the Carthaginians handed over their arms and defenses: Consul Lucius Marcius Censorinus said to the Carthaginian envoys:"Your ready obedience up to this point, Carthaginians, in the matter of the hostages and the arms, is worthy of all praise. In cases of necessity we must not multiply words. Bear bravely the remaining commands of the Senate. Yield Carthage to us, and betake yourselves where you like within your own territory at a distance of at least fifteen kilometers from the sea, for we are resolved to raze your city to the ground."
While he was yet speaking, the Carthaginians lifted their hands toward heaven with loud cries, and called on the gods as avengers of violated faith. They heaped reproaches on the Romans, as if willing to die, or insane, or determined to provoke the Romans to sacrilegious violence to ambassadors. They flung themselves on the ground and beat it with their hands and heads. Some of them even tore their clothes and lacerated their flesh as though they were absolutely bereft of their senses. After the first frenzy was past there was great silence and prostration as of men lying dead.
In Syria, I think the parallel is apt. In the first place, the United States would gain greatly if she could obtain in Syria the same results by mere threats what she would otherwise enforce at her own expense. Should threatening fail, the United States would benefit from a boon in the legitimacy of such a strike, as in the tradition of the Second Hague Conference, all military action must be preceded by either a declaration of war, or the issuance of an ultimatum, the rejection of which was an automatic catalyst to war. In the third place, the partial acceptance of some ultimata would enfeeble the remaining powers of resistance once the accumulated pressure produced a situation where the intended target had no choice but to resist. Therefore I think Assad giving up his chemical weapons would be a tremendous strategic error. It would by no means disarm the tenacity of his enemies. It would produce no echo of sympathy among the Western public, who are apt to forget such gestures of compliance momentarily. It would throw away much of his feeble means of deterrence. It would negatively influence the domestic anti-war arguments in the West, to the extent that Assad's very possession of chemical weapons is a reason not to back him into a suicidal corner. Kerry was quite right when he said that he had no expectations of compliance from the Syrian government, because he himself had no intentions of making a serious offer. The comparison is apt but if Carthage had the Huns behind their back and all of the mediteranian watching things could have been different. There will never be a good reason for Syria to ever contemplate giving up their stash of CW (next demand would be to stop using artillery or airstrikes on "civilian targets" which would of course fail). But it's an unreasonable request which is brilliant for making the US seem unreasonable. If Syria say they tried it is up to the US to show that they both failed and that the request was reasonable. Which will of course give Russia a perfect opportunity to disagree. Either the request is then ammended untill it is reasonable (which defeats the whole purpose of the ploy) or the US pays the price (in many different "currencies") and attacks, which was their option all along. Putins support stops the moment the first cruise missile flies but untill then I have no doubt he will turn the once ripe Syrian plum as bitter as he possibly can and this move just plays right into his hand. Of course the US could just fill both his hands with gold so he cant hold them above Assad anymore but thats just another price to pay. There is a 700 year period between the Punic wars and the Huns. Carthage was destroyed by Roman paranoia, warmongering and a pathological hate for any rival that would not submit.
I know that too but how does that matter? My comparison was not meant to be historically accurate (no what if scenarios can be that either way) and the Huns were obviosly choosen to instill a sense of a rival player from the east.
Roman culture was also vile (some say the worst one in history but I think that shows a huge disregard for the Mongols) but that is off topic.
|
On September 10 2013 03:28 farvacola wrote:
All I know is that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are none too happy with this acquiescence.
I have to admit I agree with this 100%. With the web and the way news travels, this was punch, counterpunch. Shock and Awww Shit(think Chunk from Goonies)
|
Something tells me there will be a no vote, then Syria will try to go with the Russian plan but there will be some "incident" and Kerry/Obama will use it as an excuse to go in anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
