|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Show nested quote +Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war?
And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day.
|
On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day.
Only... the numbers don't equal out.
|
On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out.
The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible.
|
On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible.
They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history.Ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure.
You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility.
|
On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility.
What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either.
|
On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history.Ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility.
Not like Afghanistan was much of a success either.
|
On August 31 2013 10:12 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history.Ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. Not like Afghanistan was much of a success either.
At least compare it to Libya, which is the closest equivalent. The UK voted on whether military action should be an option - military action meant air strikes against weapon caches, potentially a no fly zone, specifically NOT feet on the ground. The more I think about it the more I think this would have been a good course of action. The difficulty is that we cannot influence what happens after the civil war, like in Libya.
I just wish we could have had a clearly set out plan to target specifically any forces/weaponry involved in attacking civilians and committing war crimes while otherwise letting the war play out itself.
|
On August 31 2013 10:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either.
Please, enlighten me of the huge differences which will not lead down the same rabbit hole the Iraq war did? You cannot just help the rebels out, since if you are fighting for the Syrian public you sure as hell don't want those scums running the place either. So back to nation building and deciding the most USA friendly government.
Well there are huge differences in the publics numbers. I read a poll that 90% of UK don't want to go in, which is quite difference from the 49/51. Admittedly it is closer in the US with I think it was about 25/50. I don't know about Turkey's public stance however, but it's interesting how a government which was half a year ago cracking down hard on the public and murdering any opposition is the light bearer these days. Not much surprise with the AQ angels fighting the good fight with the rebels.
|
On August 31 2013 10:23 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:11 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either. Please, enlighten me of the huge differences which will not lead down the same rabbit hole the Iraq war did? You cannot just help the rebels out, since if you are fighting for the Syrian public you sure as hell don't want those scums running the place either. So back to nation building and deciding the most USA friendly government. Well there are huge differences in the publics numbers. I read a poll that 90% of UK don't want to go in, which is quite difference from the 49/51. Admittedly it is closer in the US with I think it was about 25/50. I don't know about Turkey's public stance however, but it's interesting how a government which was half a year ago cracking down hard on the public and murdering any opposition is the light bearer these days. Not much surprise with the AQ angels fighting the good fight with the rebels.
Of the actual action being suggested I think the UK public opinion split was more like 25% for, 25% undecided, 50% against.
|
On August 31 2013 10:23 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:11 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either. Please, enlighten me of the huge differences which will not lead down the same rabbit hole the Iraq war did? You cannot just help the rebels out, since if you are fighting for the Syrian public you sure as hell don't want those scums running the place either. So back to nation building and deciding the most USA friendly government. Well there are huge differences in the publics numbers. I read a poll that 90% of UK don't want to go in, which is quite difference from the 49/51. Admittedly it is closer in the US with I think it was about 25/50. I don't know about Turkey's public stance however, but it's interesting how a government which was half a year ago cracking down hard on the public and murdering any opposition is the light bearer these days. Not much surprise with the AQ angels fighting the good fight with the rebels.
You've just outlined part of why this situation is different, in that the rebel/governmental divide in Syria is very much unlike anything in Iraq. And to be clear, I'm not saying I'm totally behind the idea of international involvement, I'm simply saying that poor equivalencies to past events are not a good justification for inaction.
|
To this day the US uses chemical and biological warfare against Columbia for the 'war on drugs.'
The broader picture is politics is no longer a realm of ideologies and principals. It is a business. Going to war (and yes it will be war - couched in the internationally acceptable language of 'an intervention') in Syria is a business venture.
And the comparison to Iraq may not be reasonable on some levels - yet one can promise the course of the war will be similar: a quick initial victory followed by a long period (unending like Iraq?) of guerilla skirmishes and bombings carried out by insurgents. Of course the US knows this and they welcome it – it is good business and furthers US influence in the region.
Without exception, the American people and the world have been lied to by American politicians as to the reasons they have decided to go to war. Why should anyone trust them now? Obama is no different. Part of the reason he got into power was because he opposed the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Patriot Act...Indeed he said he would repeal their mandates. He has done little, no worse: he has even increased activity in certain key areas; drones for one – further destabilizing the India/ Pakistan border and increasing Pakistani and Islamic resentment/outright hatred of the US and/or its foreign policies.
Don't get me wrong I do not care either way - war or no war - I just hate dishonesty. Infact if the Obama administration said publicly: 'we should intervene in Syria in order to increase the rapidity of our economic recovery' - I would support it. But that is just me - I like brutal honesty.
|
On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day.
Can't really compare something like Iraq that happened within the last couple of years to something like murdering of indigenous Australians that mostly happened over a hundred years ago.Regardless it would be good to avoid further bloodbaths in the future - if the US does decide to bomb Syria i can assure you that there will be far more innocent casualties than the 1300 killed by these chemical attacks.
|
On August 31 2013 10:57 AxiomBlurr wrote:
To this day the US uses chemical and biological warfare against Columbia for the 'war on drugs.'
The broader picture is politics is no longer a realm of ideologies and principals. It is a business. Going to war (and yes it will be war - couched in the internationally acceptable language of 'an intervention') in Syria is a business venture.
And the comparison to Iraq may not be reasonable on some levels - yet one can promise the course of the war will be similar: a quick initial victory followed by a long period (unending like Iraq?) of guerilla skirmishes and bombings carried out by insurgents. Of course the US knows this and they welcome it – it is good business and furthers US influence in the region.
Without exception, the American people and the world have been lied to by American politicians as to the reasons they have decided to go to war. Why should anyone trust them now? Obama is no different. Part of the reason he got into power was because he opposed the Wolfowitz Doctrine and the Patriot Act...Indeed he said he would repeal their mandates. He has done little, no worse: he has even increased activity in certain key areas; drones for one – further destabilizing the India/ Pakistan border and increasing Pakistani and Islamic resentment/outright hatred of the US and/or its foreign policies.
Don't get me wrong I do not care either way - war or no war - I just hate dishonesty. Infact if the Obama administration said publicly: 'we should intervene in Syria in order to increase the rapidity of our economic recovery' - I would support it. But that is just me - I like brutal honesty.
So what you're saying is:
1. That nigh-endless guerrilla war as the defensive faction is profitable, in an era where it is immensely difficult to gain new territory or bleed the conquered dry, and at a time when the American government is literally forcing the military industry to run at full steam no matter what to ensure the economy looks less awful for the next election cycle.
2. That Obama wants to make everyone in America, the Middle East and Europe HATE him for putting boots on the ground.
3. That nonstop international policing and guerrilla warfare increases our influence in the Middle East. Considering the populace hates that, you're also implying that popular support is generally irrelevant when trying to determine how much influence we have. That's a rather interesting belief to have considering a lack of sufficient popular support is what makes terrorism so hard to defeat and makes every rebellion over there end in the dictatorship keeping power or the terrorists gaining power.
Yes, politicians lie, steal and break promises and yes, businesses usually put money before morals. That's 100%, without a doubt true. What isn't true, though, is that big business and big government have banded together in a massive unholy conspiracy, built solely to repeatedly screw themselves over at every available opportunity.
|
On August 31 2013 08:23 ImperialFist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 07:54 Shiragaku wrote:On August 31 2013 07:45 ImperialFist wrote:
Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. Oh, so you are a reformed neoconservative :D oh god i dont know if i should laugh or cry
It was a hyperbolic joke. No need for despair 
|
|
|
On August 31 2013 01:57 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote:On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 30 2013 21:09 Zarahtra wrote:On August 30 2013 21:02 revel8 wrote:On August 30 2013 08:40 Zaros wrote:
[quote]
theres a whip for every vote unless the leaders say its a free vote, there was no whipping operation though, the whips didn't try to persuade anyone they just left them all alone. John Reid has said it was a three-line whip vote. Labour peer Lord Reid of Cardowan, defence secretary under Tony Blair in 2005 and 2006, told BBC News last night, "It's unprecedented for a prime minister and deputy prime minister and a government with a majority to lose a vote on a three line whip, on a foreign affairs issue, which involves military action.
"It's certainly not within my living memory and it is therefore a massive blow to the Prime Minster himself, and the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html It's always funny when people with power have a hissyfit when they realize a country is run by democracy not dictatorship. Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. Heck it might be the PR move USA especially is in desperate need of. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93currenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.htmlBiggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism. What I was saying in the 2nd paragraph, which could've been worded a lot better admittedly(such as not using the word 'only') was that the terrorist problems USA especially faces is mostly connected to the 2 wars(yes I know 9/11 was ofc before the 2 wars). For those to stop, for this "war on terror" to stop(yes even though crazy people will still commit terrorism) I feel the west and especially USA needs to be rather the voice of peace than war. That includes stopping double taps and signature strikes which I consider war crimes. To stabalize middle east we can't just invade any country that becomes unstable. They need to work it out for themselves and we should just be focusing on trying to reach the rational, calm people of those regions. Instead we are depriving those people of their humanity as they watch their family members bombed and have to watch them die due to fear of a double tap. If we behave like animals, why shouldn't they? The other terrorist problems are usually rooted in something social, such as nordic nations(and UK I think?) have multi-culturalism issues, India seems more political/religion based, Israel/Palestine is ofcourse by now what 55 year history etc etc.
I don't disagree with you about the war, you don't need to marginalize terrorism problem that is related to social problems to be against sending armies to middle east.
|
|
|
On August 31 2013 10:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either.
You are forgetting about the whip. It was not a free vote where 272 people were in support. Some of those 272 only voted for so that they did not get in trouble with their parties.
Also, the UK was not actually voting to help people in Syria, we were voting for military action such as missile strikes. It's quite annoying to see the British people on TL bending that vote to their own local political agenda and using the Syruan people as an excuse. These people (on TL) don't give a shit about Syrian people.
It should be obvious to everyone that if you forcibly remove Assad then you also need to remove certain aspects of the rebellion, otherwise you will end up with a lot of religious cleansing in Syria. The problem is that if you create such a power vacuum then you need to leave some sort of military (peacekeeping) force in Syria for years or decades to come. Due to the geographical location of Syria we can not possible leave a NATO force there for the next 10 years. Therefore, unless you get someone like the Russians or Chinese on board we are not going to actually help the people of Syria.
|
My sides almost split when someone suggested the US "Shouldn't start a war in Syria".
Along with saying that it was horrible that the US was even contemplating launching missiles at syrian command posts, whereas the use of chemical weapons that killed 1500 people didnt seem too bad to these people.
|
On August 31 2013 19:58 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 10:11 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 10:10 Zarahtra wrote:On August 31 2013 10:02 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:55 dUTtrOACh wrote:On August 31 2013 09:50 farvacola wrote:On August 31 2013 09:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On August 31 2013 07:52 BioNova wrote:
It's awesome, so now we invade Saudi Arabia right? Since the red line was crossed, I'll just defer to the usual cheerleaders. How does one invade a country already owned? Pretty sure Iran is next on the agenda after Syria, they've been wanting to invade Iran for years. Sometimes in cases like these I wish the UN would just revoke the supremacy of Syria, occupy the country and force real democracy down the throat of these cave-men before they murder more innocent people, both Assad and the despicable opposition should rot in jail. So remind me how many innocent people the USA murdered in Iraq war? What about the 400,000 killed or maimed by chemical weapon Agent Orange in Vietnam war? And what about the many indigenous Australian massacres that have taken place since your country's founding? We can play the equivalency game all day. Only... the numbers don't equal out. The point is that every nation on this earth has done unspeakable things, and to simply point at the past atrocities committed by the US government as evidence that the Syrian government is somehow absolved of their culpability or that it suggests a path of inaction is the way to go is not very sensible. They are not absolved of anything, however it's generally advicable to learn from history. It's pretty much agreed that ignoring the lies that led to Iraq, it's still generally accepted on both wings in the US that the Iraq war was a failure. You seem quite willing to not learn a thing and just say fuck it. I think most sensible people are searching for other solutions, though sadly Obama screwed himself by drawing a certain line which forces him to do an insanely stupid thing or loose credibility. What is not accepted, however, is the equation of this scenario with the one in Iraq. Furthermore, considering that the British Parliament vote was as close as it was in concert with the support of nations like Turkey for armed intervention, "insanely stupid thing" is not agreed upon either. Also, the UK was not actually voting to help people in Syria, we were voting for military action such as missile strikes. It's quite annoying to see the British people on TL bending that vote to their own local political agenda and using the Syruan people as an excuse. These people (on TL) don't give a shit about Syrian people. .
But it's ok for you to bend it right?! It was not a vote for strikes, that would have required another vote.
Let people read what it implied for themselves http://www.itv.com/news/2013-08-28/the-full-text-of-the-governments-motion-on-syria/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
