On September 14 2013 19:40 Ghanburighan wrote: 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.
no, no, just trust me. i have some transcript provided to me by a tl-user who absolutely hates us govt guts. it verifies my post.
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.
If this is what it takes to get America to realize that it's not the sole arbiter of the world's morality, so be it. "The world," whatever that is, doesn't hate America because of its global influence; they hate it because it has a proclivity to ignore the sovereignty of other nations, escalate armed conflicts, and kill lots of people. Frankly, I don't hate America; I dislike its foreign policy immensely, and I think that certain aspects of its law lag behind the rest of the West, but I don't hate the country, since it's filled with a mish-mash of good/bad people like anywhere else, and because America isn't embroiled in a constant civil war.
But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
On September 14 2013 21:48 Shiori wrote: But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're throwing out vague criticisms of America based on the gross oversimplifications of "America is bombing countries, so countries are right to be upset with them." Why don't you point out exactly where we've been this imperialist, bombing menace? Exactly what war are you arguing we shouldn't have been involved in? Afghanistan? Sure, we should have let Al Qaeda remain strong after 9/11. Persian Gulf War? Kosovo? Libya? Iraq?
The funny thing is, I remember having most of the Western world asking for American intervention in every one of those conflicts except Iraq. Which is why posts like yours are such a contradictory joke to Americans. Other countries beg for us to get in these wars, for us to sacrifice American lives, for us to spend American money, expect America to clean up the mess after we accomplish our mission, and then citizens from these same countries that were urging America to act are getting on their moral high horse afterwards when our involvement causes civilian deaths as if they had opposed the wars in the first place.
And then proceed to act indignant when we don't get involved in Syria. It's appropriate to be annoyed when we're going to be shitted on regardless of what action we take by the rest of the international community, despite how utterly hypocritical and contradictory their own policies and rhetoric are.
US again going back on its word. First CW were a red line, Assad uses them then US wants to punish him because he used them. Now the fact that he used them isn't an issue anymore. Now it's enough to say were they are and we will give a year to do with them whatever you want.
So were are those ppl who were convinced that US is intervening to ''help civilians''?
On September 14 2013 21:48 Shiori wrote: But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're throwing out vague criticisms of America based on the gross oversimplifications of "America is bombing countries, so countries are right to be upset with them." Why don't you point out exactly where we've been this imperialist, bombing menace? Exactly what war are you arguing we shouldn't have been involved in? Afghanistan? Sure, we should have let Al Qaeda remain strong after 9/11. Persian Gulf War? Libya? Iraq?
The funny thing is, I remember having most of the Western world asking for American intervention in every one of those conflicts except Iraq. Which is why posts like yours are such a contradictory joke to Americans. Other countries beg for us to get in these wars, for us to sacrifice American lives, for us to spend American money, expect America to clean up the mess after we accomplish our mission, and then citizens from these same countries that were urging America to act are getting on their moral high horse afterwards when our involvement causes civilian deaths as if they had opposed the wars in the first place.
And then proceed to act indignant when we don't get involved in Syria. It's appropriate to be annoyed when we're going to be shitted on regardless of what action we take by the rest of the international community, despite how utterly hypocritical and contradictory their own policies and rhetoric are.
You realise that in every conflict you mentioned western allies of the US were involved as well. Sacrificing money and lives too. It's not so weird that they expect the US to lead when the US is simply the only one with the capacity to.
On September 14 2013 21:48 Shiori wrote: But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're throwing out vague criticisms of America based on the gross oversimplifications of "America is bombing countries, so countries are right to be upset with them." Why don't you point out exactly where we've been this imperialist, bombing menace? Exactly what war are you arguing we shouldn't have been involved in? Afghanistan? Sure, we should have let Al Qaeda remain strong after 9/11. Persian Gulf War? Libya? Iraq?
The funny thing is, I remember having most of the Western world asking for American intervention in every one of those conflicts except Iraq. Which is why posts like yours are such a contradictory joke to Americans. Other countries beg for us to get in these wars, for us to sacrifice American lives, for us to spend American money, expect America to clean up the mess after we accomplish our mission, and then citizens from these same countries that were urging America to act are getting on their moral high horse afterwards when our involvement causes civilian deaths as if they had opposed the wars in the first place.
And then proceed to act indignant when we don't get involved in Syria. It's appropriate to be annoyed when we're going to be shitted on regardless of what action we take by the rest of the international community, despite how utterly hypocritical and contradictory their own policies and rhetoric are.
You realise that in every conflict you mentioned western allies of the US were involved as well. Sacrificing money and lives too. It's not so weird that they expect the US to lead when the US is simply the only one with the capacity to.
Expecting us to lead because we have the strongest military is one thing. Fair enough. But we also invest FAR more into these wars, even per capita, than any of our Western allies do. The end result is that we're pretty much picking up the slack for the unreasonably low military spending of the rest of the West. Furthermore, when it comes to carrying out these military operations, there are far more American boots on the ground than there are from any other nationality.
But instead of being appreciated for paying disproportionate amounts for the Western world's wars, we're repaid with disproportionate amount of the criticism. This is why I (and I'm guessing the other upset Americans) are annoyed about it.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
Edit: You know what, I'll indulge you, here goes; it's an interview with Assad concerning the current situation surrounding Syria.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
No, you should actually post a description of the video when you post it. It's part of what separates shit posters from people who are banned. It is also a 30 minute video. Pointing out important dialogue in the video is what would make that post better.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
No, you should actually post a description of the video when you post it. It's part of what separates shit posters from people who are banned. It is also a 30 minute video. Pointing out important dialogue in the video is what would make that post better.
If people can't be bothered to watch half an hour of extremely relevant footage concerning the topic at hand, maybe they shouldn't be posting on said topic. Also, it's funny that you brought up shit posting, this thread is drowning in it in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, back to Syria please.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
No, you should actually post a description of the video when you post it. It's part of what separates shit posters from people who are banned. It is also a 30 minute video. Pointing out important dialogue in the video is what would make that post better.
If people can't be bothered to watch half an hour of extremely relevant footage concerning the topic at hand, maybe they shouldn't be posting on said topic. Also, it's funny that you brought up shit posting, this thread is drowning in it in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, back to Syria please.
Being associated with the subject matter doesn't mean it's relevant. It is relevant if it reveals new information or provides a new perspective on already existing information. You shouldn't be posting in this topic because you apparently aren't even versed enough in the video you posted to inform us about it. Most people aren't going to watch a 30 minute video of dubious intellectual value just because you posted it. In fact, your assertion that 30 minutes of a politician talking is 'extremely relevant' serves to make most people more skeptical.
On September 14 2013 21:48 Shiori wrote: But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're throwing out vague criticisms of America based on the gross oversimplifications of "America is bombing countries, so countries are right to be upset with them." Why don't you point out exactly where we've been this imperialist, bombing menace? Exactly what war are you arguing we shouldn't have been involved in? Afghanistan? Sure, we should have let Al Qaeda remain strong after 9/11. Persian Gulf War? Libya? Iraq?
The funny thing is, I remember having most of the Western world asking for American intervention in every one of those conflicts except Iraq. Which is why posts like yours are such a contradictory joke to Americans. Other countries beg for us to get in these wars, for us to sacrifice American lives, for us to spend American money, expect America to clean up the mess after we accomplish our mission, and then citizens from these same countries that were urging America to act are getting on their moral high horse afterwards when our involvement causes civilian deaths as if they had opposed the wars in the first place.
And then proceed to act indignant when we don't get involved in Syria. It's appropriate to be annoyed when we're going to be shitted on regardless of what action we take by the rest of the international community, despite how utterly hypocritical and contradictory their own policies and rhetoric are.
You realise that in every conflict you mentioned western allies of the US were involved as well. Sacrificing money and lives too. It's not so weird that they expect the US to lead when the US is simply the only one with the capacity to.
The U.S. put the majority of the effort into those conflicts, and the only reason that we're the only one that is capable of this is because other countries are lazy and are riding on our coattails so they don't have to foot the bill and they can take the moral high ground when they want.
Everyone loves to remember Iraq and pretend that every conflict we've entered is like Iraq. The fact is, that's bullshit. We've been taking the costs for the rest of the developed world's intervention desires and we're pretty fucking tired of taking the criticism when you guys do so little compared to us.
On September 14 2013 21:48 Shiori wrote: But this notion of America playing the victim is absolute bullshit. If you invade countries, bomb them, or do anything that results in the deaths of civilians, people somewhere are going to be upset. I'd argue that they're upset for a pretty good reason, honestly, but the reason you perceive America is "hated" more so than any other country which tends to have lots of military conflicts is because America is impossible to ignore. Most people can look from a detached point of view at the Middle Eastern conflicts and the countries that engender them. But you can't do that with America because America is so intertwined with Western international politics (not least because it consistently tries to impose itself on matters where it, really, has no jurisdiction).
Sorry, but this is just nonsense. You're throwing out vague criticisms of America based on the gross oversimplifications of "America is bombing countries, so countries are right to be upset with them." Why don't you point out exactly where we've been this imperialist, bombing menace? Exactly what war are you arguing we shouldn't have been involved in? Afghanistan? Sure, we should have let Al Qaeda remain strong after 9/11. Persian Gulf War? Libya? Iraq?
The funny thing is, I remember having most of the Western world asking for American intervention in every one of those conflicts except Iraq. Which is why posts like yours are such a contradictory joke to Americans. Other countries beg for us to get in these wars, for us to sacrifice American lives, for us to spend American money, expect America to clean up the mess after we accomplish our mission, and then citizens from these same countries that were urging America to act are getting on their moral high horse afterwards when our involvement causes civilian deaths as if they had opposed the wars in the first place.
And then proceed to act indignant when we don't get involved in Syria. It's appropriate to be annoyed when we're going to be shitted on regardless of what action we take by the rest of the international community, despite how utterly hypocritical and contradictory their own policies and rhetoric are.
You realise that in every conflict you mentioned western allies of the US were involved as well. Sacrificing money and lives too. It's not so weird that they expect the US to lead when the US is simply the only one with the capacity to.
The U.S. put the majority of the effort into those conflicts, and the only reason that we're the only one that is capable of this is because other countries are lazy and are riding on our coattails so they don't have to foot the bill and they can take the moral high ground when they want.
Everyone loves to remember Iraq and pretend that every conflict we've entered is like Iraq. The fact is, that's bullshit. We've been taking the costs for the rest of the developed world's intervention desires and we're pretty fucking tired of taking the criticism when you guys do so little compared to us.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
No, you should actually post a description of the video when you post it. It's part of what separates shit posters from people who are banned. It is also a 30 minute video. Pointing out important dialogue in the video is what would make that post better.
If people can't be bothered to watch half an hour of extremely relevant footage concerning the topic at hand, maybe they shouldn't be posting on said topic. Also, it's funny that you brought up shit posting, this thread is drowning in it in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, back to Syria please.
Being associated with the subject matter doesn't mean it's relevant. It is relevant if it reveals new information or provides a new perspective on already existing information. You shouldn't be posting in this topic because you apparently aren't even versed enough in the video you posted to inform us about it. Most people aren't going to watch a 30 minute video of dubious intellectual value just because you posted it. In fact, your assertion that 30 minutes of a politician talking is 'extremely relevant' serves to make most people more skeptical.
Charlie Rose's interview with Bashar al-Assad is extremely relevant to the subject matter, especially in light of the possibility (at the time) of US military strikes against the Syrian government, which makes the interview almost like a statement from a defendant in a trial. This clearly offers a "new perspective" - the other side's perspective, which is extremely valuable. Bashar al-Assad was pretty eloquent and persuasive, in my opinion, constantly emphasising the lack of incriminating evidence against his regime. Anyone who wants to have a valid opinion on whether or not the man should be punished should at least hear what he has to say, no? I wouldn't trust the link from what looks to be the official Syrian government Youtube channel, obviously, so here's a link to the interview straight from the source:
Note that the full interview is actually an hour long. Do yourself a favour and watch it, or if you don't have the time, skim through the transcript (also in the link) or read any number of newspaper commentaries on the interview.
On a side note, it's pretty funny that the Syrian government stole Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to The Rock for its Youtube videos.
And a final point, I just want to stress how important this interview is. Charlie Rose traveled all the way to Syria to get the perspective of Bashar al-Assad, who is at the centre of this entire controversy over both the Syrian civil war and what the international community should do about it. For anyone to think that this interview is not relevant is simply unfathomable.
This thread isn't about US foreign policy so I'll just bump myself :p
And in two posts you still haven't managed to explain or give any context to the video, one which happens to be covered in arabic text undecipherable to most on this board. If you are going to complain as to the direction of the thread, repeatedly posting one liners and youtube videos isn't exactly consistent.
This is a joke, right ?
No, you should actually post a description of the video when you post it. It's part of what separates shit posters from people who are banned. It is also a 30 minute video. Pointing out important dialogue in the video is what would make that post better.
If people can't be bothered to watch half an hour of extremely relevant footage concerning the topic at hand, maybe they shouldn't be posting on said topic. Also, it's funny that you brought up shit posting, this thread is drowning in it in case you haven't noticed. Anyway, back to Syria please.
Being associated with the subject matter doesn't mean it's relevant. It is relevant if it reveals new information or provides a new perspective on already existing information. You shouldn't be posting in this topic because you apparently aren't even versed enough in the video you posted to inform us about it. Most people aren't going to watch a 30 minute video of dubious intellectual value just because you posted it. In fact, your assertion that 30 minutes of a politician talking is 'extremely relevant' serves to make most people more skeptical.
Charlie Rose's interview with Bashar al-Assad is extremely relevant to the subject matter, especially in light of the possibility (at the time) of US military strikes against the Syrian government, which makes the interview almost like a statement from a defendant in a trial. This clearly offers a "new perspective" - the other side's perspective, which is extremely valuable. Bashar al-Assad was pretty eloquent and persuasive, in my opinion, constantly emphasising the lack of incriminating evidence against his regime. Anyone who wants to have a valid opinion on whether or not the man should be punished should at least hear what he has to say, no? I wouldn't trust the link from what looks to be the official Syrian government Youtube channel, obviously, so here's a link to the interview straight from the source:
Note that the full interview is actually an hour long. Do yourself a favour and watch it, or if you don't have the time, skim through the transcript (also in the link) or read any number of newspaper commentaries on the interview.
On a side note, it's pretty funny that the Syrian government stole Hans Zimmer's soundtrack to The Rock for its Youtube videos.
And a final point, I just want to stress how important this interview is. Charlie Rose traveled all the way to Syria to get the perspective of Bashar al-Assad, who is at the centre of this entire controversy over both the Syrian civil war and what the international community should do about it. For anyone to think that this interview is not relevant is simply unfathomable.
On September 16 2013 03:27 Warlock40 wrote: Bashar al-Assad was pretty eloquent and persuasive, in my opinion, constantly emphasising the lack of incriminating evidence against his regime.
Thanks for the summary. Apparently the leader of a country was able to give a persuasive speech (this must be an uncommon quality among politicians) where he emphasized his own innocence and attempted to discredit his opponents.
To you, it is unfathomable that I wouldn't waste an hour of my time to confirm what I already had enough evidence to assume. Hit me up when Kim Jong-un releases a video statement about NK being the least glorious nation in the world, not when Clinton says that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky.
EPT![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hWgQgI6Hvcw/UNi_DA-QKiI/AAAAAAAADqo/B9vH8fXsSDA/s320/tumblr_m45g7nhCQZ1rrdiwlo2_1280.png)
