|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 14 2013 05:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:12 Ghanburighan wrote:
The report is important for several reasons:
a) It gives a concrete basis for the claims that large-scale chemical weapons attacks have occurred.
b) Certified details about the nature of the attack, and the tools use allow for countries to argue which side did it (if it was rocket-propelled, and only govt. forces have that capability, it was Assad)
c) Ban Ki Moon added commentary to the report linking it to Assad.
d) The report comes out while Kerry and Lavrov are in Geneva discussing the current proposal, and this report will put pressure on Russia to accept a stronger response. It is a Civil War.... Can you rule out beyond all possibility that the rebels got there hands on any of the CW? There is no point in knowing the nature of the rocket. Either side would be firing the exact same one if they had any. This report will answer nothing. We know there was a CW attack, what we need to know is who did it.
I do not have to rule out anything. And I'm sure the Russians will be claiming such things just as you did, but the report adds weight and detail to Kerry's case which will influence the ongoing talks.
P.S. Try to see things in more colours than black and white. There is no absolute proof of anything, instead you have very real events such as the handing in reports from UN experts to the members which shift attention and provide momentum to either side. To have a clear idea of the status quo, you need to analyze such events. So to say that "this report will answer nothing" is missing the point.
|
On September 14 2013 05:35 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it... Kosovo, Serbia. Both seem much better now than they did in the 90s. I realize there are bad examples as well, I was pointing out that "the world" is better at nation-building than the Americans, while America is better at conducting warfare than the rest of "the world". I'm pointing out that we all have our role to play, simple as that. edit: le spelling
You've got to be kidding. In Kosovo, roughly a third to half of the population lives below the poverty line. The country doesn't have its own currency, and current estimates deem the unemployment rate just short of 50%. Minority groups face discrimination and more serious threats to their human security in day-to-day life, and thousands of refugees/IDPs still live in camps. Organized crime (money laundering, drug trade, human trafficking and organ harvesting) and corruption have become something like the national pasttime. How is that 'seeming better' than before the war?
|
On September 14 2013 05:35 iMOOrtal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it... Kosovo, Serbia. Both seem much better now than they did in the 90s. I realize there are bad examples as well, I was pointing out that "the world" is better at nation-building than the Americans, while America is better at conducting warfare than the rest of "the world". I'm pointing out that we all have our role to play, simple as that. edit: le spelling
It is not our obligation to fulfill your ideal "role" for us that conveniently is the most expensive by far, and constitutes killing and dying as well. Why do people think they can just ask for that, or even demand it?
I like the idea that if we just do all the warfare part, someone else will successfully "build" a new nation in Syria. Just as long as it's not 'Murica.
That's the only problem with nation-building: is when 'Murica does it.
Otherwise it works absolutely perfectly, especially in the Middle-East.
Perhaps my country, having just fought two wars, should be best serve in letting the UN, and all the other UN participating nations handle this -- or is Syria a world superpower the likes of which none of you could ever handle?
Maybe we're tired of being the world-police, especially if people are going to take that shit for granted, and we could instead start investing in our country's own infrastructure, education and well-being.
|
It's easy to drop some bombs. What the people oh-so politely asking for death and destruction are not really discussing is the concept of liability. "You break it you own it".
And you just ask us to break it, like there isn't a major liability as to what happens to Syria as a result, and who but us will be held liable for that by the general public across the world.
|
On September 14 2013 07:28 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:35 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it... Kosovo, Serbia. Both seem much better now than they did in the 90s. I realize there are bad examples as well, I was pointing out that "the world" is better at nation-building than the Americans, while America is better at conducting warfare than the rest of "the world". I'm pointing out that we all have our role to play, simple as that. edit: le spelling It is not our obligation to fulfill your ideal "role" for us that conveniently is the most expensive by far, and constitutes killing and dying as well. Why do people think they can just ask for that, or even demand it? I like the idea that if we just do all the warfare part, someone else will successfully "build" a new nation in Syria. Just as long as it's not 'Murica. That's the only problem with nation-building: is when 'Murica does it. Otherwise it works absolutely perfectly, especially in the Middle-East. Perhaps my country, having just fought two wars, should be best serve in letting the UN, and all the other UN participating nations handle this -- or is Syria a world superpower the likes of which none of you could ever handle? Maybe we're tired of being the world-police, especially if people are going to take that shit for granted, and we could instead start investing in our country's own infrastructure, education and well-being.
The world doesn't just take that shit for granted. They hate and despise us for our global influence. Why should we help a world that treats us like some kind of malignant cancer? Why should we sacrifice lives and livelihood so that everyone out there can hate us even more?
We aren't even a bitter pill to swallow these days. We're a fucking suppository.
|
On September 14 2013 07:28 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 05:35 iMOOrtal wrote:On September 14 2013 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:
edit: the world is good at rebuilding? Yeah because they've had such a great history in doing it... Kosovo, Serbia. Both seem much better now than they did in the 90s. I realize there are bad examples as well, I was pointing out that "the world" is better at nation-building than the Americans, while America is better at conducting warfare than the rest of "the world". I'm pointing out that we all have our role to play, simple as that. edit: le spelling It is not our obligation to fulfill your ideal "role" for us that conveniently is the most expensive by far, and constitutes killing and dying as well. Why do people think they can just ask for that, or even demand it? I like the idea that if we just do all the warfare part, someone else will successfully "build" a new nation in Syria. Just as long as it's not 'Murica. That's the only problem with nation-building: is when 'Murica does it. Otherwise it works absolutely perfectly, especially in the Middle-East. Perhaps my country, having just fought two wars, should be best serve in letting the UN, and all the other UN participating nations handle this -- or is Syria a world superpower the likes of which none of you could ever handle? Maybe we're tired of being the world-police, especially if people are going to take that shit for granted, and we could instead start investing in our country's own infrastructure, education and well-being.
Then give the UN some legitimacy instead of using them wheb it pleases you. You can't expect the UN to pick up your slack when you've been undermining their authority when it pleases you. Same counts for Russia and Chjna and all the permanent members really.
And come on guys the US has been using their military and economical prominance for political purposes too. It's not like you're having your army for nothing.
|
Guys, I don't mean to rain on your parade, but when you're talking about "the world" or "the international community" or "the global public", asf. (which actually consists of a manifold of different countries, all with their own political interests and agendas), it's really not that surprising that this imaginary actor comes off as a bit schizophrenic.
|
U.S. lawmakers were also shown transcripts of the communications intercepts of Syrian officials discussing the attack both before and afterward — including a conversation where one Syrian commander told the military's chemical weapons unit to cease firing, because they'd done enough damage, according to a congressional official.
The intelligence official said the U.S. is not going to release those transcripts, in part because foreign intelligence agencies provided some of the material.
The Obama administration also said it had established that rockets were fired from a regime-held area into rebel-held areas through satellite imagery, but such imagery has not been shown to lawmakers, though the congressional official said they will ask to see it.
Source.
|
sigh. I see a theme here.
"We have tons and tons of evidence. Really there is no doubt whatsoever"
"So can we see it because you know, you guys lied in the recent past"
"Noooooooo you cant"
|
|
|
France has submitted the UN Syria Resolution.
|
On September 14 2013 09:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
France has submitted the UN Syria Resolution.
Link?
|
Show nested quote +We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy. How exactly has the US ignored the UN so far with regards to Syria?
making threats and military movements vs a sovereign state.
On September 14 2013 08:42 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +
U.S. lawmakers were also shown transcripts of the communications intercepts of Syrian officials discussing the attack both before and afterward — including a conversation where one Syrian commander told the military's chemical weapons unit to cease firing, because they'd done enough damage, according to a congressional official.
The intelligence official said the U.S. is not going to release those transcripts, in part because foreign intelligence agencies provided some of the material.
The Obama administration also said it had established that rockets were fired from a regime-held area into rebel-held areas through satellite imagery, but such imagery has not been shown to lawmakers, though the congressional official said they will ask to see it.
Source.
ahah, so saudi/israeli/qatar/turkish intelligence faxed them some totally legit transcripts.
|
Don't twist words without any proof or reasoning. It's lazy and ugly, and convinces no-one.
|
On September 14 2013 12:51 nunez wrote:
making threats and military movements vs a sovereign state.
Sovereign state? Really?
The "state" is no longer present, nor would it deserve power if it was
|
On September 14 2013 15:51 PineapplePizza wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 12:51 nunez wrote:
making threats and military movements vs a sovereign state.
Sovereign state? Really? The "state" is no longer present, nor would it deserve power if it was
your angle of approach is that syria is not a sovereign state, which is a claim i don't quite buy... how deserving a sovereign state needs to be is not mentioned in the un charter.
On September 14 2013 15:15 Ghanburighan wrote:
Don't twist words without any proof or reasoning. It's lazy and ugly, and convinces no-one.
you should be able to see the reasoning in my post pretty easily!
not a masterpiece by any stretch, but still, the reasoning of the 3 "twists" are pretty obvious.
maybe if you put in some more effort...
|
No, Nunez, you wrote a one-liner where you didn't even bother to add punctuation. Don't try to turn it around into "I didn't put enough effort into understanding it." That's nonsense. You made a lazy comment and didn't bother to explain it when confronted about it. Your contribution by that half a line is 0.
|
On September 14 2013 18:51 Ghanburighan wrote:
No, Nunez, you wrote a one-liner where you didn't even bother to add punctuation. Don't try to turn it around into "I didn't put enough effort into understanding it." That's nonsense. You made a lazy comment and didn't bother to explain it when confronted about it. Your contribution by that half a line is 0.
ok, np. i'll spell it out for you then.
faxed -> a way of sending transcripts, chosen due to funny imagery and as a quirky insult.
saudi/israeli/qatar/turkish intelligence -> a set of intelligence agencies that could have provided the transcripts. look at a map, mod out the countries not aligned with us in this conflict, restrict it to local countries relative syria and forget to mention a couple.
totally legit -> sarcastic, "us intelligence" should not be trusted, re the iraq war.
;>
|
|
|
The problem is, that doesn't actually make any sense. If US intelligence cannot be trusted, what's the problem with Saudi, Qatar, etc intelligence? I'll help you out, the transcripts were intercepted by Israel, this much has already been leaked. Why isn't Mossad a reliable source?
Basically, you're making a contentless-jab. I can do the same: Nunez talks shit. I don't prove it or verify it in any way (forget everything else I've said on the issue for this to truly work). I just make a claim. The usefulness of this claim = 0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
