Volkerball posted:

I love how your idea of a "liberal humanitarian" is McCain-esque neo-cons. Because we all know how Halabja was on the news 24 hours a day in the lead up to the Iraq war. People who's argument is "The world must understand that what the US says, goes" can't be conflated with humanitarian interventionists, sorry.

Xandu posted:

What would Iran gain from that, unless it thinks US strikes on Syria will escalate towards its own forces?

Also I think their last timetable for dropping him called for him staying in power another year or two, which is absurd.

Tezzor posted:

This is a bizarrely transparent lie. Every war the US has recently (arguably ever) engaged in was sold in humanitarian terms, not just incidentally but centrally. All the suffering women in Afghanistan, the oppression the Iraqis suffered, the cruelty of Gaddhafi, etc. All the contemporary liberal interventionists bought these arguments and ceaselessly repeated them, just as much as the neocons. Remember that Cheney is the one who said "greeted as liberators."

Radio Prune posted:

AMERICAAAA!!!!

Tezzor posted:

This is a bizarrely transparent lie. Every military action the US has recently (arguably ever) engaged in was sold in humanitarian terms, not just incidentally but centrally. All the suffering women in Afghanistan, the oppression the Iraqis suffered, the cruelty of Gaddhafi, etc. All the contemporary liberal interventionists bought these arguments and ceaselessly repeated them, just as much as the neocons. Remember that Cheney is the one who said "greeted as liberators." It was Rumsfeld and Cheney and Krauthammer and Hannity supporting some or all of these wars, but it was also Dan Savage, the Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, the New Republic, the New York Times, Newsweek, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Ariana Huffington.

Volkerball posted:

Yes. All the suffering women in Afghanistan were discussed as much as 9/11. The oppression the Iraqi's suffered was talked about as much as WMD's and Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. These wars were clearly sold as in the best intentions for the people in their respective countries, and not from a sense of killing them all and letting god sort them out by fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. What a ridiculous argument. This is extra clear now, when the humanitarian idea of intervention in Syria, the no-fly zone to prevent Assad from dropping barrel bombs on neighborhoods, was overwhelming fought against, but when big scary ISIS showed up, people were chomping at the bit to blow up those terrorists. To gain the support of Americans for war, you need to be doing something that Americans perceive as beneficial to them personally. Nobody gave a poo poo about suffering women in Afghanistan or the oppression Iraqi's suffered any more than they cared about starving kids in Darfur or 500,000+ slaughtered in Rwanda, because none of those things have anything to do with Americans.

Sure, the Bush administration made token nods to helping the civilian populace whenever it was brought up, because they're obviously not going to be like "Yeah, we don't actually care about the civilians, so we're really gonna give them a pounding taking out all the infrastructure in their cities," but it wasn't a selling point or even a pronounced talking point. The only case that was sold that way was Libya, and we were greeted as liberators there. Libyans overwhelming supported intervention prior to it, and American favorability in Libya was higher than American favorability in Canada following the intervention. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your gently caress Amerikkka, Putin is pretty ok though, vibe.

Sergg posted:

I don't think we should start bombing ISIS in Syria primarily because I'm not convinced they'd be worse rulers than Assad, in all honesty.

Sergg posted:

Well that and the history of our Middle-Eastern interventions has proven them to largely be gigantic fuckups.

VitalSigns posted:

ISIS can't murder women, children, or religious minorities in northern Iraq if we incinerate all those groups first!

McDowell posted:

I'm suggesting the use of nuclear weapons if we start targeting ISIL in Syria, focusing on areas where they have undisputed control. It saves time and money with greater psychological impact compared to a drawn out 'conventional' campaign. Once ISIL is gone the regional actors can sweep up and start sorting things out (or not, but this should be the grand finale of US involvement in Eurasian politics)



The good Dale is in the lodge and he can't leave. Write it in your diary.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Do you think we should let those who'd be better rulers than Assad start bombing ISIS in Syria?

E:

More hosed up than our non-interventions?

Sergg posted:

Reminder that I said from the very beginning of this conflict that our strategy of allowing stalemate between the FSA and Assad government hoping that it would bring them to the negotiating table would actually cause both sides to become more and more extremist the longer the war raged.

quote:

Next year will commence the eighth decade of what we still call the post-War era. In that time we have seen one of the supreme achievements of human history – a structure of security formed in the years after the Second World War and underwritten, guaranteed, and defended by the United States of America.

What makes it all real, in the end, is the fact of American military superiority. Without that, we would be just one more nation with good intentions and strong opinions. It is not some arbitrary cycle of history that made the post-War era what it has been. It is American power, and American leadership.

quote:

We know what those notions are, because at times the president has been, not only clear about them, but quite emphatic. He has demonstrated his own distrust for American power as a force for good in the world.

quote:

A few months ago I traveled through the Middle East visiting with old friends in governments in Arab nations and in Israel. Again and again, I heard the same question – just what is Barack Obama doing? How could he so carelessly sacrifice America’s hard-won gains in the region, walking away from friends, leaving violent enemies to fill the void? Like many in our own country, these friends of America cannot understand why the president was so insistent on withdrawing American leadership just when it was needed most.

A policy of non-intervention can be just as dogmatic as its opposite, and this president has seemed at times only more sure of himself as he is disproved by events. Syria is just one example. After the regime used chemical weapons against thousands of children, the administration took a stance of what you might call principled indifference: We cared, went the message – just not enough to do anything about it. And never mind the high-minded warnings and meaningless red line.

quote:

With crises in Iraq, Ukraine, and so much else unraveling, there is little comfort in President Obama’s reminders now and then that ultimately, things have a way of working out … and that, ultimately, the bad actors of the world are destined to fail. The terrorists, he’s observed a time or two, are on the wrong side of history – a useful thought, only if it is expressed in the active and not the passive, to motivate and not just to console. The terrorists who threaten this country and our friends are on the wrong side of civilization. They will be on the wrong side of history only if we put them there.

We must deal with threats before they become grave dangers and dangers before they become catastrophes. That’s where the best kind of history is made – the story of awful things that never happened, because our foresight and resolve did not allow them.

My Imaginary GF posted:

That wasn't our policy. Our policy was to insist on bringing both parties to the table in order to isolate Assad from non-Russian international business, while arming verified individuals to minimize the blowback risks. Obviously, this resulted in lots of death.

When thid policy resulted in Assad's use of chemical weapons, we were preparing to gather a coalition to intervene. When he agreed to a deal that our coalition partners would not accept a refusal of, we agreed. Much to Hillary's surprise. Really, the reason he accepted the deal was more to allow pressure to gently caress over Hilldawg than anything else. Or so logical explanation for Putin's pressure goes. Hilldog bet on Medvedev, which caused Assad to lose his declared WMD stockpile.

Sergg posted:

Wait so you're telling me that Assad accepted his stockpiles of chemical weapons to be destroyed so that he could damage Hillary Clinton's reputation?

Volkerball posted:

Cheney isn't in power anymore. His statements are just attacking Obama to discredit his foreign policy because Democrats. He has no reason to be drumming up support for war. Also there's like one reference in all that to victims in Syria, and the rest is security related bullshit. And that's from your selected quotes out of an entire rant about security, I'm sure.

quote:

Transcript of Bush speech on Saddam's capture

Sunday, December 14, 2003 Posted: 1757 GMT ( 1:57 AM HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Sunday delivered a television address on the capture of Saddam Hussein, saying that the toppled Iraqi leader would not threaten Iraqis ever again and congratulating U.S. forces.

Following is a transcript of the speech:

BUSH: Good afternoon.

Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him and for all who bullied and killed in his name.

For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held.

For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again.

All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals: sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country.

The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our service men and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.

Their work continues, and so do the risks.

Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our armed forces, and I congratulate them.

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action, and that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell and victory by victory.

Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sheer belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America.

Thank you.

McDowell posted:

I'm suggesting the use of nuclear weapons if we start targeting ISIL in Syria, focusing on areas where they have undisputed control. It saves time and money with greater psychological impact compared to a drawn out 'conventional' campaign. Once ISIL is gone the regional actors can sweep up and start sorting things out (or not, but this should be the grand finale of US involvement in Eurasian politics)

SedanChair posted:

A-all right, thank you for your time.

Spoke Lee posted:

So if intervention is off the table for some people, what is the alternate course of action to help the populations in imminent danger?

Tezzor posted:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/12/14/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/index.html

quote:

Just one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — and only five days after the war in Afghanistan had begun — President Bush signaled his determination to confront Saddam Hussein next.

"There's no question that the leader of Iraq is an evil man. After all, he gassed his own people. We know he's been developing weapons of mass destruction. … And so we're watching him very carefully. We're watching him carefully," Bush said in an Oct. 11, 2001, address.

But the administration had its eye on Iraq long before 9/11.

Even in his inaugural address, Bush — though he did not mention Iraq by name — sounded the themes that underlie his policy today. "We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom."

Sergg posted:

Oh and Tezzor, the death toll in the Ukraine conflict is at the very least 3000 killed with anywhere between half a million to a million refugees.

Spoke Lee posted:

So if intervention is off the table for some people, what is the alternate course of action to help the populations in imminent danger?

VitalSigns posted:

Yeah but America didn't do it, so just ignore that and concentrate on the important thing: Russia's just moving an arbitrary line on the map, no big deal

Chomsky posted:

My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgment. That is, the ethical value of one's actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.

Tezzor posted:

Deteriorata posted:

Best we can do is stall and keep ISIS from expanding while the local actors with a real stake in the outcome get their poo poo together.

Tezzor posted:

Tezzor posted:

Minus the criticism of Obama, Cheney's rationale for war on ISIS is indistinguishable from that of any D&D warmonger.

Dilkington posted:

What is it that you have against war?

Ragingsheep posted:

But that is pretty much what the US is doing.

Volkerball posted:

And this is why I whitewash other countries crimes to make American ones seem like the only ones that matter, you see.

Gen. Ripper posted:

So has anything actually happened in the Middle East in the last 40 posts or is this just Tezzor trying to get that hate Amerikkka beat embed to play nonstop in D&D and failing miserably