|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
United States43030 Posts
On an unrelated note, in the event of a collapse of military authority in Syria what do you think will happen to their chemical weapon stockpiles? Black market arms dealers must be circling like vultures at the thought, a moment when the physical soldiers guarding the sites no longer have an employer, any kind of security for themselves and their families and no accountability. Unless Israel is really on the ball and can strike every single one of them simultaneously at the moment of Syrian collapse this could get pretty ugly, too early and they'd risk a chemical weapon response, too late and they'd risk missing some. This is a different ball game to the rest of the Arab Spring.
|
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?
Now present a sermon on how Saudi-Arabia is a beacon of democracy and hope.
|
United States43030 Posts
On May 08 2013 04:41 ImperialFist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:16 Catch]22 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Now present a sermon on how Saudi-Arabia is a beacon of democracy and hope.
Saudi Arabia is the way it is because of the way the average Saudi civilian is and changing that will take time. The US support for the monarchy is support for the most moderate, secular and westernised element in the country. Sad but true.
|
On an unrelated note, in the event of a collapse of military authority in Syria what do you think will happen to their chemical weapon stockpiles? Black market arms dealers must be circling like vultures at the thought, a moment when the physical soldiers guarding the sites no longer have an employer, any kind of security for themselves and their families and no accountability. Unless Israel is really on the ball and can strike every single one of them simultaneously at the moment of Syrian collapse this could get pretty ugly, too early and they'd risk a chemical weapon response, too late and they'd risk missing some. This is a different ball game to the rest of the Arab Spring.
If and when people realize that the sites cannot be physically secured, they will probably be JDAMed and napalmed to ash and dust.
Now present a sermon on how Saudi-Arabia is a beacon of democracy and hope.
Perhaps we should invade them?
|
On May 08 2013 04:31 KwarK wrote:
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.
Isn't it the rebels who are suspected of using Sarin gas? Assad's regime was previously suspect of using a chemical weapon, but it was not said to be Sarin.
|
United States43030 Posts
On May 08 2013 04:48 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:31 KwarK wrote:
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. Isn't it the rebels who are suspected of using Sarin gas? Assad's regime was previously suspect of using a chemical weapon, but it was not said to be Sarin.
Which, from an international security standpoint, sucks more balls than if Assad had been using them.
|
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.
1. I'm not sure you can attribute the lack of a "World War III" to American interventionism.
2. Meaningless, since you clearly mean in absolute terms, seeing as the growth of international trade is actually decreasing as a percentage basis.
3. And yet with growing extreme wealth disparities, one of the underlying causes of instability.
4. Half the world? Not even half of Europe. Nice try though.
The thing is, the US has the ability to do a Nazi Germany. And your definition of encirclement is rather self serving. Russia and China cannot encircle the US in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia respectively. They don't have military presences in Canada or Mexico for example. On the other hand, the US with its policy of interventionism, forces governments and countries into extremism, breeding instability.
|
United States43030 Posts
America protects American interests globally and is sufficiently interventionist to have American interests pretty much everywhere. As a sole superpower that pretty much dampens potential conflicts. You could argue that American foreign policy isn't altruistic in its intention and that the Pax Americana is a side effect but you can't really deny it exists. The western world hasn't known peace like this since the fall of Rome.
|
On May 08 2013 04:52 raviy 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. 1. I'm not sure you can attribute the lack of a "World War III" to American interventionism. 2. Meaningless, since you clearly mean in absolute terms, seeing as the growth of international trade is actually decreasing as a percentage basis. 3. And yet with growing extreme wealth disparities, one of the underlying causes of instability. 4. Half the world? Not even half of Europe. Nice try though. The thing is, the US has the ability to do a Nazi Germany. And your definition of encirclement is rather self serving. Russia and China cannot encircle the US in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia respectively. They don't have military presences in Canada or Mexico for example. On the other hand, the US with its policy of interventionism, forces governments and countries into extremism, breeding instability.
1. Didn't say intervention did I, I said the international system.
2. So trade is growing, already having reached record levels in years past and up to today, with bumps in the road of course, but the amount of growth is slowing, so... what was your point again? When trade goes negative, you'll have a leg to stand on.
3. Utterly meaningless. More people are living far better today than their parents or grandparents lived, all around the globe. Income inequality is a a nice first-world problem for left-wingers to whine about.
4. You sound pretty bitter about it.
Yes the US does have that ability, good thing we've never used it to just roll over a half-dozen countries and turn them into actual parking lots and leave. Which actually sounds like a better idea than what we have tried to do, hindsight and all that.
Who cares if my definition of encirclement is self-serving? Vietnam or the former Warsaw Pact countries certainly do feel the breathing of the Russian bear or Chinese dragon on the back of their necks. They're pretty happy with the US trying to encircle Russia and China.
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here.
|
On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here.
Chile and probably lots of other military dictatorships that were pushed up by the US during the cold war.
|
On May 08 2013 05:07 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here. Chile and probably lots of other military dictatorships that were pushed up by the US during the cold war.
We weren't talking about military dictatorships we were talking about blowback, I think.
|
On May 08 2013 05:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:07 Skilledblob wrote:On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here. Chile and probably lots of other military dictatorships that were pushed up by the US during the cold war. We weren't talking about military dictatorships we were talking about blowback, I think.
well then you have successfully confused me with that never ending sentence 
|
On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:52 raviy 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. 1. I'm not sure you can attribute the lack of a "World War III" to American interventionism. 2. Meaningless, since you clearly mean in absolute terms, seeing as the growth of international trade is actually decreasing as a percentage basis. 3. And yet with growing extreme wealth disparities, one of the underlying causes of instability. 4. Half the world? Not even half of Europe. Nice try though. The thing is, the US has the ability to do a Nazi Germany. And your definition of encirclement is rather self serving. Russia and China cannot encircle the US in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia respectively. They don't have military presences in Canada or Mexico for example. On the other hand, the US with its policy of interventionism, forces governments and countries into extremism, breeding instability. Yes the US does have that ability, good thing we've never used it to just roll over a half-dozen countries and turn them into actual parking lots and leave. Which actually sounds like a better idea than what we have tried to do, hindsight and all that.
I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have?
|
On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War + Show Spoiler + (support for Jonas Savimbi, labeled 'the Abraham Lincoln of Angola' by Reagan, although he littered the country with land mines, once bombed a Red Cross-run factory making artificial legs for victims of those mines...)
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Crisis
Foreign involvement in the Simba Rebellion
The Soviets, the Chinese, the Americans and their Western allies were now all involved in the Congo, providing money, arms and advisors to their chosen factions. In addition, the "Radical" Leftist leaders of the African continent were outraged at the specter of white mercenaries and "Neocolonial" Western powers intervening on behalf of the Leopoldville regime, and openly supported the Stanleyville rebel government. In addition to Massemba-Debat's Marxist "Congo-Brazzaville" People's Republic, these supporters included: Ahmed Ben Bella in newly independent Algeria, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and Julius Nyerere in the neighboring socialist nation of Tanzania, among others.
By early August 1964 Congolese government forces, with the help of the groups of white mercenaries under their own command, were making headway against the Simba rebellion.
A mercenary fighting for the West in the Congo gives the following account:
It seemed to me we had been taking villages apart, innocent villages of peaceful farming folk who did not want any part of this war, all the way along the track from far down in the south.
We would turn up unexpectedly, open fire without warning, race through the place, burning every pathetic shanty and shack to the ground regardless of who might be inside. The idea was to spread the image of our determination and ruthlessness; to terrorise the whole area; to give the rebels an example of what they were in for...
It seemed almost certain that the villagers knew nothing about the activities of the rebels...
Unsuspecting women were hustling around, carrying water and going about the last of their day's chores. Children were playing in the dust, laughing and shouting to one another.
We paused for a few minutes, and then came the order to fire. There was a great crackle of shots from machine guns and our deadly new Belgian rifles. Women screamed and fell. Little children just stood there, dazed, or cartwheeled hideously as bullets slammed into them.
Then, as usual, we raced into the place, still firing as we went. Some of us pitched cans of petrol on to the homes before putting a match to them. Others threw phosphorus hand grenades, which turned human beings into blazing inextinguishable torches of fire.
For a while, as we raced along, there was bedlam. Shrieks, moans, shrill cries for mercy. And, above all, the throaty, half-crazed bellowing of those commandoes among us who quite obviously utterly loved this sort of thing. Then, as we moved away beyond the village, the comparative silence, the distant, hardly distinguishable cries of the wounded, the acrid smell of burning flesh.
These mercenaries were trained to never, 'in any circumstances', take prisoners:
Even if men, women and children come running to you... even if they fall on their knees before you, begging for mercy, don't hesitate. Just shoot to kill.
Fearing defeat, the rebels started taking hostages of the local white population in areas under their control. Several hundred hostages were taken to Stanleyville and placed under guard in the Victoria Hotel.
and obviously, the Vietnam war.
Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies.
|
On May 08 2013 04:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:48 hzflank wrote:On May 08 2013 04:31 KwarK wrote:
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. Isn't it the rebels who are suspected of using Sarin gas? Assad's regime was previously suspect of using a chemical weapon, but it was not said to be Sarin. Which, from an international security standpoint, sucks more balls than if Assad had been using them.
If it was the rebels, which is a toss up at this point. I wonder if Assad has already lost facilities or the Sarin came from outside the borders. We know Assad has it, if the Rebels have it, where from?
|
I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have?
No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it.
I don't see where any of those promoted extremism. I'm not really concerned about criticism of how we fought the Soviets, the same way I have no problem with how we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo or dropped the nukes. If it gets your moral compass all in a tizzy that we went balls to the wall to literally keep the planet free it's no skin off my nose.
and obviously, the Vietnam war.
Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies.
Yes, we obviously wanted to destabilize Vietnam, seeing as how the South Vietnamese government's stability was one of its greatest strengths and all [/sarcasm]
Stability is part of the USA's expansionist strategies, how you manage to come up with the complete opposite conclusion I don't know. USA has as a rule always chosen stability over instability, except for the Arab Spring which is why things are such a mess. Obama should have never tossed Mubarak under the bus, look where we are now because of that. Instability and violence everywhere. Of course from my point of view Arabs bleeding their own strength out against each other instead of spending it against us is pretty tits.
|
On May 08 2013 05:25 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 04:49 KwarK wrote:On May 08 2013 04:48 hzflank wrote:On May 08 2013 04:31 KwarK wrote:
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. Isn't it the rebels who are suspected of using Sarin gas? Assad's regime was previously suspect of using a chemical weapon, but it was not said to be Sarin. Which, from an international security standpoint, sucks more balls than if Assad had been using them. If it was the rebels, which is a toss up at this point. I wonder if Assad has already lost facilities or the Sarin came from outside the borders. We know Assad has it, if the Rebels have it, where from?
I have no facts to back this up, but if the rebels have Sarin it is highly likely that it used to belong to Assad. The rebels are getting most of their weaponry from NATO, and NATO would not of given them Sarin. I suppose the rebels might get support from other islamist groups, but if they had Sarin we would already be talking about it.
It seems that the most likely explanation would be that they took it from Assad, or that people defected from Assad and brought the gas with them.
|
On May 08 2013 05:22 TymerA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charlyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War + Show Spoiler + (support for Jonas Savimbi, labeled 'the Abraham Lincoln of Angola' by Reagan, although he littered the country with land mines, once bombed a Red Cross-run factory making artificial legs for victims of those mines...)
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_CrisisShow nested quote +Foreign involvement in the Simba Rebellion
The Soviets, the Chinese, the Americans and their Western allies were now all involved in the Congo, providing money, arms and advisors to their chosen factions. In addition, the "Radical" Leftist leaders of the African continent were outraged at the specter of white mercenaries and "Neocolonial" Western powers intervening on behalf of the Leopoldville regime, and openly supported the Stanleyville rebel government. In addition to Massemba-Debat's Marxist "Congo-Brazzaville" People's Republic, these supporters included: Ahmed Ben Bella in newly independent Algeria, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and Julius Nyerere in the neighboring socialist nation of Tanzania, among others.
By early August 1964 Congolese government forces, with the help of the groups of white mercenaries under their own command, were making headway against the Simba rebellion.
A mercenary fighting for the West in the Congo gives the following account:
It seemed to me we had been taking villages apart, innocent villages of peaceful farming folk who did not want any part of this war, all the way along the track from far down in the south.
We would turn up unexpectedly, open fire without warning, race through the place, burning every pathetic shanty and shack to the ground regardless of who might be inside. The idea was to spread the image of our determination and ruthlessness; to terrorise the whole area; to give the rebels an example of what they were in for...
It seemed almost certain that the villagers knew nothing about the activities of the rebels...
Unsuspecting women were hustling around, carrying water and going about the last of their day's chores. Children were playing in the dust, laughing and shouting to one another.
We paused for a few minutes, and then came the order to fire. There was a great crackle of shots from machine guns and our deadly new Belgian rifles. Women screamed and fell. Little children just stood there, dazed, or cartwheeled hideously as bullets slammed into them.
Then, as usual, we raced into the place, still firing as we went. Some of us pitched cans of petrol on to the homes before putting a match to them. Others threw phosphorus hand grenades, which turned human beings into blazing inextinguishable torches of fire.
For a while, as we raced along, there was bedlam. Shrieks, moans, shrill cries for mercy. And, above all, the throaty, half-crazed bellowing of those commandoes among us who quite obviously utterly loved this sort of thing. Then, as we moved away beyond the village, the comparative silence, the distant, hardly distinguishable cries of the wounded, the acrid smell of burning flesh.
These mercenaries were trained to never, 'in any circumstances', take prisoners:
Even if men, women and children come running to you... even if they fall on their knees before you, begging for mercy, don't hesitate. Just shoot to kill.
Fearing defeat, the rebels started taking hostages of the local white population in areas under their control. Several hundred hostages were taken to Stanleyville and placed under guard in the Victoria Hotel. and obviously, the Vietnam war. Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies.
Neoconservatives generally don't like history unless they wrote/ or are attempting to revise it. Everything you link could be 100% fact and it's going to bounce of his predev world view. Empathy is not to be applied universally.
|
On May 08 2013 05:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I don't really understand this part. Sure, the US hasn't done this, but is that really enough reason to be comfortable with the amount of power they have? No, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of power we have too because it's made a lot of the rest of the world (looking at you, Europe) content to benefit from the post-WW2 system without contributing their fair share into it. I don't see where any of those promoted extremism. I'm not really concerned about criticism of how we fought the Soviets, the same way I have no problem with how we firebombed Dresden or Tokyo or dropped the nukes. If it gets your moral compass all in a tizzy that we went balls to the wall to literally keep the planet free it's no skin off my nose.
Dropping the nukes to "saving lives" or even more hilariously "literally keep the planet free" has been debunked many times. And you really should be open to criticism...I feel I don't have to explain why, as it should be intrinsic to anyone interested in intellectual or moral seriousness.
|
On May 08 2013 05:33 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2013 05:22 TymerA wrote:On May 08 2013 05:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Which countries has the US forced into extremism, this seems like a far cry from the history of the US supporting non-extremist dictatorships during the Cold War or the 1990s. Oh and which countries has the US bred deliberately bred instability in as opposed to say the countries China or Russia has deliberately bred instability in, or the countries the US has unintentionally bred instability in, seems to me we're getting just a teeny bit close to conspirazee! territory here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Charlyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_Civil_War + Show Spoiler + (support for Jonas Savimbi, labeled 'the Abraham Lincoln of Angola' by Reagan, although he littered the country with land mines, once bombed a Red Cross-run factory making artificial legs for victims of those mines...)
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_CrisisForeign involvement in the Simba Rebellion
The Soviets, the Chinese, the Americans and their Western allies were now all involved in the Congo, providing money, arms and advisors to their chosen factions. In addition, the "Radical" Leftist leaders of the African continent were outraged at the specter of white mercenaries and "Neocolonial" Western powers intervening on behalf of the Leopoldville regime, and openly supported the Stanleyville rebel government. In addition to Massemba-Debat's Marxist "Congo-Brazzaville" People's Republic, these supporters included: Ahmed Ben Bella in newly independent Algeria, Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt, and Julius Nyerere in the neighboring socialist nation of Tanzania, among others.
By early August 1964 Congolese government forces, with the help of the groups of white mercenaries under their own command, were making headway against the Simba rebellion.
A mercenary fighting for the West in the Congo gives the following account:
It seemed to me we had been taking villages apart, innocent villages of peaceful farming folk who did not want any part of this war, all the way along the track from far down in the south.
We would turn up unexpectedly, open fire without warning, race through the place, burning every pathetic shanty and shack to the ground regardless of who might be inside. The idea was to spread the image of our determination and ruthlessness; to terrorise the whole area; to give the rebels an example of what they were in for...
It seemed almost certain that the villagers knew nothing about the activities of the rebels...
Unsuspecting women were hustling around, carrying water and going about the last of their day's chores. Children were playing in the dust, laughing and shouting to one another.
We paused for a few minutes, and then came the order to fire. There was a great crackle of shots from machine guns and our deadly new Belgian rifles. Women screamed and fell. Little children just stood there, dazed, or cartwheeled hideously as bullets slammed into them.
Then, as usual, we raced into the place, still firing as we went. Some of us pitched cans of petrol on to the homes before putting a match to them. Others threw phosphorus hand grenades, which turned human beings into blazing inextinguishable torches of fire.
For a while, as we raced along, there was bedlam. Shrieks, moans, shrill cries for mercy. And, above all, the throaty, half-crazed bellowing of those commandoes among us who quite obviously utterly loved this sort of thing. Then, as we moved away beyond the village, the comparative silence, the distant, hardly distinguishable cries of the wounded, the acrid smell of burning flesh.
These mercenaries were trained to never, 'in any circumstances', take prisoners:
Even if men, women and children come running to you... even if they fall on their knees before you, begging for mercy, don't hesitate. Just shoot to kill.
Fearing defeat, the rebels started taking hostages of the local white population in areas under their control. Several hundred hostages were taken to Stanleyville and placed under guard in the Victoria Hotel. and obviously, the Vietnam war. Instability is part of USA's expansionist strategies. Neoconservatives generally don't like history unless they wrote/ or are attempting to revise it. Everything you link could be 100% fact and it's going to bounce of his predev world view. Empathy is not to be applied universally.
Neoconservatives hahaha. The neoconservative view on foreign affairs currently rules the US's policy towards the Arab Spring, a policy I completely disagree with.
So much for your bogeyman neocon.
Like I said I like that history.
I don't understand how allowing the USSR to subvert countries into jack-booted Soviet communism is an expression of empathy, but then again, we've devolved into ad hominem territory the instant you clicked "Post," BioNova. Good job.
Dropping the nukes to "saving lives" or even more hilariously "literally keep the planet free" has been debunked many times. And you really should be open to criticism...I feel I don't have to explain why, as it should be intrinsic to anyone interested in intellectual or moral seriousness.
"I disagree with you, this means you are not open to criticism!"
"You will not agree with me, this means you are closed-minded and not interested in moral or intellectual seriousness!"
Gawd damn the blackmailing threats of ad hominems are roaring back in full force aren't they now.
And no, sadly, neither of those two things have been "debunked many times." What you really meant to say is, "I disagree with that perspective." I hope so anyway, otherwise your interest in moral or intellectual seriousness might just be feigned a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
