|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On May 06 2013 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Syria will not attack. Assad is trying to stay in power not commit a suicidal move, if a war were to happen Syria would not be fighting Israel alone, they would be fighting Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. No friends of Syria, or Iran for that matter.
Forty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 100 people are missing after airstrikes on military sites outside Damascus on Sunday, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, citing medical sources. Syria claimed Israel struck three military facilities Sunday. Israel has not confirmed or denied any strikes.
[Original story, posted at 7:44 a.m. Monday]
U.N. official: There are strong suspicions Syrian rebels used sarin gas
(CNN) -- A U.N. official says there are strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces have used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas in the country's civil war.
Carla Del Ponte told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.
Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, said the notion isn't surprising, given the infiltration of foreign fighters into the Syrian opposition.
But rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad said rebels don't even have unconventional weapons, nor do they want any.
"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Almokdad said.
Source
|
A UN team of investigators into rights abuses in Syria has stressed there is no conclusive proof of either side in the conflict using chemical weapons, despite a team member's claims to the contrary.
"The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic wishes to clarify that it has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict," the commission said in a statement on Monday.
Earlier, Carla del Ponte, a former war crimes prosecutor and a member of the commission, had told Swiss public broadcaster RSI that "according to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas".
She acknowledged there was "still not irrefutable proof, [but] very strong suspicions, concrete suspicions that sarin gas has been used... by opponents, by rebels, not by government authorities."
Source
|
Hopefully this means that the US won't do anything stupid like arm, support, or fund the rebels.
|
It would make sense that the rebels would want to introduce chemical weapons to the conflict, they have everything to gain from assumptions that it was the government that ordered their deployment, while Assad has everything to lose if it does somehow get pinned on him. There is no rationale for him to give that order, chemical weapons aren't ideally suited to the kind of fighting going on in Syria.
|
I fail to see how Assad can be considered the lesser of the two evils, with him in power, Syria is an ally of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Should he fall, even if the new government is hellbent on Jihad with every infidel in the world, they will loathe these previous Assad allies, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, weakening their influence greatly.
Thenagain, people mentioned them turning on Lebanon, maybe. Maybe even on Israel. So I guess a case could be made that keeping Assad in power is the only path to peace in the region. Would a new Jihadist Syria attack Israel, counting on anti-Israel sentiments in, mainly, Egypt to garner them support in the region?
Also curious what will happend to the Kurds, who seem to be focusing on defending their own people only. The hatred for Assad runs deep in the kurdish population, who might try to establish their own country, much to the ire of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
|
On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them
Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO.
|
On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO.
Yes Putin has played a great role in preventing a general war, which is why a general war is closer today than it was two years ago. Putin is directly responsible for the Assad government's ability to survive the last two years, with each new day of bloody back-and-forth making a general war more likely.
The most likely outcome of the civil war is now a splintering of Syria into warlordism. If NATO had intervened from the start and brought down Assad's government quickly, it would have use as part of an 'encirclement' of Russia, but it could hardly play that role now or in the future. If this is our treasonous plan, it is not a very good one.
Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals?
|
On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals?
Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace.
|
On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace.
What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests.
I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever.
Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully.
|
On May 07 2013 03:01 Catch]22 wrote:
I fail to see how Assad can be considered the lesser of the two evils, with him in power, Syria is an ally of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Should he fall, even if the new government is hellbent on Jihad with every infidel in the world, they will loathe these previous Assad allies, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, weakening their influence greatly.
Thenagain, people mentioned them turning on Lebanon, maybe. Maybe even on Israel. So I guess a case could be made that keeping Assad in power is the only path to peace in the region. Would a new Jihadist Syria attack Israel, counting on anti-Israel sentiments in, mainly, Egypt to garner them support in the region?
Also curious what will happend to the Kurds, who seem to be focusing on defending their own people only. The hatred for Assad runs deep in the kurdish population, who might try to establish their own country, much to the ire of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
What is good with weakening the influence of the Assad allies? Do you believe that turning Syria into an arena of bloodbath and a playground of religious fanatics is a reasonable price to pay for that to happen? Instead of going after Assad, get the other bastard dictators in the middle-east, Assad is as innocent as a new-born kitten compared to them.
Don't get me wrong, Assad is a dictator and therefore he is trash but people need to be aware of the alternatives, there are no happy endings in the middle-east only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting gods.
And it will remain so until the power of secularism and science takes it hold over the decrepit.
|
On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully.
I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling.
Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests.
|
On May 06 2013 22:03 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Syria will not attack. Assad is trying to stay in power not commit a suicidal move, if a war were to happen Syria would not be fighting Israel alone, they would be fighting Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. No friends of Syria, or Iran for that matter. Show nested quote +Forty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 100 people are missing after airstrikes on military sites outside Damascus on Sunday, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, citing medical sources. Syria claimed Israel struck three military facilities Sunday. Israel has not confirmed or denied any strikes.
[Original story, posted at 7:44 a.m. Monday]
U.N. official: There are strong suspicions Syrian rebels used sarin gas
(CNN) -- A U.N. official says there are strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces have used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas in the country's civil war.
Carla Del Ponte told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.
Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, said the notion isn't surprising, given the infiltration of foreign fighters into the Syrian opposition.
But rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad said rebels don't even have unconventional weapons, nor do they want any.
"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Almokdad said.
Source
Just to point out, Hezbollah said only 4 were killed in the attack and i trust their numbers more as they have incentive to inflate them.
|
On May 07 2013 07:59 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 22:03 BioNova wrote:On May 06 2013 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Syria will not attack. Assad is trying to stay in power not commit a suicidal move, if a war were to happen Syria would not be fighting Israel alone, they would be fighting Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. No friends of Syria, or Iran for that matter. Forty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 100 people are missing after airstrikes on military sites outside Damascus on Sunday, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, citing medical sources. Syria claimed Israel struck three military facilities Sunday. Israel has not confirmed or denied any strikes.
[Original story, posted at 7:44 a.m. Monday]
U.N. official: There are strong suspicions Syrian rebels used sarin gas
(CNN) -- A U.N. official says there are strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces have used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas in the country's civil war.
Carla Del Ponte told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.
Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, said the notion isn't surprising, given the infiltration of foreign fighters into the Syrian opposition.
But rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad said rebels don't even have unconventional weapons, nor do they want any.
"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Almokdad said.
Source Just to point out, Hezbollah said only 4 were killed in the attack and i trust their numbers more as they have incentive to inflate them.
Two sided coin, Hezbollah also doesn't want to appear weak and if it's so easily thwarted thus would align with that ideal so it's a toss up... Trust a terrorist organization or heavily biased journalism, it's a sad day when we live in a world where both are about equal in terms of legitimate sourcing.
|
On May 07 2013 07:59 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 22:03 BioNova wrote:On May 06 2013 12:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Syria will not attack. Assad is trying to stay in power not commit a suicidal move, if a war were to happen Syria would not be fighting Israel alone, they would be fighting Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc. No friends of Syria, or Iran for that matter. Forty-two Syrian soldiers were killed and at least 100 people are missing after airstrikes on military sites outside Damascus on Sunday, the opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Monday, citing medical sources. Syria claimed Israel struck three military facilities Sunday. Israel has not confirmed or denied any strikes.
[Original story, posted at 7:44 a.m. Monday]
U.N. official: There are strong suspicions Syrian rebels used sarin gas
(CNN) -- A U.N. official says there are strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces have used the deadly nerve agent sarin gas in the country's civil war.
Carla Del Ponte told an Italian-Swiss TV station that the findings come after interviews with doctors and Syrian victims now in neighboring countries.
Del Ponte, the commissioner of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria, said the notion isn't surprising, given the infiltration of foreign fighters into the Syrian opposition.
But rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad said rebels don't even have unconventional weapons, nor do they want any.
"In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Almokdad said.
Source Just to point out, Hezbollah said only 4 were killed in the attack and i trust their numbers more as they have incentive to inflate them.
I see. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that Hezbollah said only 4 people were killed in the attack, or that 4 of their fighters were killed, in addition to the Syrian troops. Any links to your story because I had just not heard that one. Not so sure I'd trust Hez's word by default, any more than a major media outlet with an axe to grind unless you're partisian by nature. .
|
On May 07 2013 05:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully. I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling. Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests.
I fail to see how not wanting the Russian or Chinese governments to get greater influence in the world is not caring about the well-being of non-Americans. I care more about the well-being of ordinary Russians or Chinese more than their governments do, probably.
And international harmony, such as it has been achieved in a limited way, is the direct result of the United States, and not a country like China or Russia, dominating the globe.
If pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas even on sunny days, Shiori. I'd be willing for America to give up her international interests that involve thwarting Chinese and Russian plans if China and Russia are willing to give up their own self-interested plans. Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works.
There is nothing arbitrary or egotistical about wanting to maintain a system that has achieved:
1. First and foremost, no World War III.
2. The greatest expansion of trade in human history.
3. The greatest expansion of prosperity in human history.
4. The liberation of half the world from Communist tyranny.
It's not about living up to your ideal of hand-holding unity, it's about not going back to 1943. The surest way to do that is make sure no country has the ability to do a Nazi Germany and overrun a dozen other countries in a few short months. Now some countries have the capability to do that... but not with the US around to beat them up if they try it.
|
On May 08 2013 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 05:56 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully. I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling. Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests. I fail to see how not wanting the Russian or Chinese governments to get greater influence in the world is not caring about the well-being of non-Americans. I care more about the well-being of ordinary Russians or Chinese more than their governments do, probably. And international harmony, such as it has been achieved in a limited way, is the direct result of the United States, and not a country like China or Russia, dominating the globe. If pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas even on sunny days, Shiori. I'd be willing for America to give up her international interests that involve thwarting Chinese and Russian plans if China and Russia are willing to give up their own self-interested plans. Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. There is nothing arbitrary or egotistical about wanting to maintain a system that has achieved: 1. First and foremost, no World War III. 2. The greatest expansion of trade in human history. 3. The greatest expansion of prosperity in human history. 4. The liberation of half the world from Communist tyranny. It's not about living up to your ideal of hand-holding unity, it's about not going back to 1943. The surest way to do that is make sure no country has the ability to do a Nazi Germany and overrun a dozen other countries in a few short months. Now some countries have the capability to do that... but not with the US around to beat them up if they try it.
Posting to let you know I read this but won't be responding to its content because it's nonsense. Didn't want you to think I hadn't read it/was ignoring you.
I don't debate with ideologues.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 08 2013 03:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 05:56 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully. I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling. Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests. I fail to see how not wanting the Russian or Chinese governments to get greater influence in the world is not caring about the well-being of non-Americans. I care more about the well-being of ordinary Russians or Chinese more than their governments do, probably. And international harmony, such as it has been achieved in a limited way, is the direct result of the United States, and not a country like China or Russia, dominating the globe. If pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas even on sunny days, Shiori. I'd be willing for America to give up her international interests that involve thwarting Chinese and Russian plans if China and Russia are willing to give up their own self-interested plans. Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. There is nothing arbitrary or egotistical about wanting to maintain a system that has achieved: 1. First and foremost, no World War III. 2. The greatest expansion of trade in human history. 3. The greatest expansion of prosperity in human history. 4. The liberation of half the world from Communist tyranny. It's not about living up to your ideal of hand-holding unity, it's about not going back to 1943. The surest way to do that is make sure no country has the ability to do a Nazi Germany and overrun a dozen other countries in a few short months. Now some countries have the capability to do that... but not with the US around to beat them up if they try it. Posting to let you know I read this but won't be responding to its content because it's nonsense. Didn't want you to think I hadn't read it/was ignoring you. I don't debate with ideologues.
Is it because you have no clever comment?
You think Russia and China are shining beacons of democracy compared to the US? That their influence wouldnt be worse than what is now?
|
United States42004 Posts
If sarin gas was used then we have to choose between either the tyrannical regime using chemical weapons against the rebels or the rebels, largely jihadists who answer to no central authority and are completely unpredictable, using them to further their own cause. Either way is going to get ugly.
|
On May 08 2013 04:16 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:59 Shiori wrote:On May 08 2013 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 05:56 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:
[quote]
I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully. I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling. Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests. I fail to see how not wanting the Russian or Chinese governments to get greater influence in the world is not caring about the well-being of non-Americans. I care more about the well-being of ordinary Russians or Chinese more than their governments do, probably. And international harmony, such as it has been achieved in a limited way, is the direct result of the United States, and not a country like China or Russia, dominating the globe. If pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas even on sunny days, Shiori. I'd be willing for America to give up her international interests that involve thwarting Chinese and Russian plans if China and Russia are willing to give up their own self-interested plans. Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. There is nothing arbitrary or egotistical about wanting to maintain a system that has achieved: 1. First and foremost, no World War III. 2. The greatest expansion of trade in human history. 3. The greatest expansion of prosperity in human history. 4. The liberation of half the world from Communist tyranny. It's not about living up to your ideal of hand-holding unity, it's about not going back to 1943. The surest way to do that is make sure no country has the ability to do a Nazi Germany and overrun a dozen other countries in a few short months. Now some countries have the capability to do that... but not with the US around to beat them up if they try it. Posting to let you know I read this but won't be responding to its content because it's nonsense. Didn't want you to think I hadn't read it/was ignoring you. I don't debate with ideologues. Is it because you have no clever comment? You think Russia and China are shining beacons of democracy compared to the US? That their influence wouldnt be worse than what is now?
It's because I disagree so fundamentally with his patriotism and because I can't even begin to understand it that I realize it wouldn't be a productive discussion for either of us. I didn't mean to insult him per se, but the entire post is completely unintelligible to me as a non-American. I really just don't understand the mindset at all, and I don't mean that disparagingly. I probably should have been less offensive, though, so I'm sorry for that.
I don't particularly love Russia or China, but neither am I particularly worried about them threatening my ideals or freedom. I'm also not as terrified of Marxist political systems as some people seem to be on the ground that I don't consider the Soviet Union to be the quintessential form of Communism.
|
On May 08 2013 03:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 05:56 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:51 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 03:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 07 2013 03:29 Perdac Curall wrote:On March 07 2013 00:56 Zeo wrote:On March 07 2013 00:40 TNK wrote:On March 06 2013 22:28 mdb wrote:
I hope no one supplies the rebels with weapons. I am just waiting to see how the rebels will use those weapons after the civil war. Most likely not for good. You can never have too many failed tribal states close to Iran. Expect more massacres in the future that 'coincidentally' happen just as NATO says 'one more atrocity and we're goin' in' Sigh... this world... EDIT: seriously, after the train-wreak that is Libya now how can people feel no shame in saying they want to plunge Syria into the same shit-hole by supplying terrorists with weapons. Thank god for Russia, one of the few countries in the world that actually thinks about the consequences of their foreign policy. Don't even want to think about the hell Syria would have become if it wasn't for them Zeo, nothing but agreement from Canada! Some of us are aware of the manipulation of events that is taking place and the important role Putin, who is demonized constantly in our press, has played in preventing the outbreak of general war. I never thought I would be more on the side of Russia than the United States. The Anglo-American treason faction elucidated by Carroll Quigley is now pushing for all out war over here, ostensibly over Syria and Iran, but with an over-arching view towards the encirclement of China and Russia by NATO. Also I'm not sure why encircling Russia and China by NATO would be a bad thing, is there something wrong about isolating rivals? Because it perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain. Both of these are bad for global security/peace. What perpetuates rivalry and encourages mutual disdain are competing, irreconcilable interests. I'm not Russian or Chinese so I don't much care if they don't like it, they try to do the same. Like every other Great Power ever. Russia does it in eastern Europe and the Middle East, China does it in Southeast and East Asia and India. America doesn't allow herself to be constrained by some double standard thankfully. I'm sorry to hear that you have interests greater than international harmony. That you don't care about the well-being of non-Americans is very telling. Maybe if you cared less about arbitrary, egotistical nonsense like being a "Great Power," you'd have less difficulty abandoning these "irreconcilable" interests. I fail to see how not wanting the Russian or Chinese governments to get greater influence in the world is not caring about the well-being of non-Americans. I care more about the well-being of ordinary Russians or Chinese more than their governments do, probably. And international harmony, such as it has been achieved in a limited way, is the direct result of the United States, and not a country like China or Russia, dominating the globe. If pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas even on sunny days, Shiori. I'd be willing for America to give up her international interests that involve thwarting Chinese and Russian plans if China and Russia are willing to give up their own self-interested plans. Unfortunately, that's not the way the real world works. There is nothing arbitrary or egotistical about wanting to maintain a system that has achieved: 1. First and foremost, no World War III. 2. The greatest expansion of trade in human history. 3. The greatest expansion of prosperity in human history. 4. The liberation of half the world from Communist tyranny. It's not about living up to your ideal of hand-holding unity, it's about not going back to 1943. The surest way to do that is make sure no country has the ability to do a Nazi Germany and overrun a dozen other countries in a few short months. Now some countries have the capability to do that... but not with the US around to beat them up if they try it. Posting to let you know I read this but won't be responding to its content because it's nonsense. Didn't want you to think I hadn't read it/was ignoring you. I don't debate with ideologues. User was warned for this post
Well, the United States being the anchor or the linchpin of the post-WW2 international system is pretty uncontroversial. It's not an expression of patriotism, it's stating an uncontroversial fact.
The rest of it is a very simple, probably too simple, explanation of realpolitik. Countries do what countries do in their perceived best self-interest and this not always but commonly includes stepping on other's country's toes. I'd rather step on Russia's and China's toes than have them be stepping on America's toes, because that would imply China or Russia had already successfully done more than step on the toes of several other countries. You seem to possess an idealistic, somewhat naive and half-formed idea of how and why the world has gone the way it has gone since 1945.
There's no demagoguery or ideologuery (not even a word! score) about what I posted unless you believe that the United States does more harm than good outside its borders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
