|
Baudolino posted:The fact that Gadaffi lost gave hope to the Syrians. If he had won a quick victory that might have made a huge impact on the willingness to turn to armed revolt in Syria. Like you guys have said so many times. Bombing in Libya made Syrians think that they would get help, this made them more likely to rebel. No bombing in Libya= Fewer soldiers defecting from Assad and perhaps fewer people daring to protest against him. It is hard to see how that could be any worse than what actually happened. DarkCrawler posted:Assad's rule would imply the deaths of tens of thousands at the very least anyway in purges and persecutions. Is it somehow less horrible when they're part of the majority? Just a general note, I sort of see Libya and Syria as two sides of the same coin, with Libya showing what happens when we intervene, and Syria showing what happens when we don't. I also tend to see the situation in Libya as being less bad than the situation in Syria (though "better than Syria" is not a ringing endorsement of anything), so basically, I'd rather the world have two Libyas (where we intervened in both countries) than two Syrias (where we didn't intervene). This is not to say the situation in Libya is good, by the way.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
McDowell posted:With Gamergate we can see some of the simpler and less-charged sectarian conflicts of US/Western culture playing out - I'd guess Daesh is pro Gamer Gate (they would be executed second after being given the option to convert) Actually it's about ethics in games jihadism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Just a general note, I sort of see Libya and Syria as two sides of the same coin, with Libya showing what happens when we intervene, and Syria showing what happens when we don't. I also tend to see the situation in Libya as being less bad than the situation in Syria (though "better than Syria" is not a ringing endorsement of anything), so basically, I'd rather the world have two Libyas (where we intervened in both countries) than two Syrias (where we didn't intervene). I don't think that is quite clear though since religion and ethnicity has a deeper divide in Syria than the clans do in Libya, it could have ended up worse. The sole determining factor in Syria and Libya hasn't intervention or not, in reality they quite different conflicts altogether. In addition, if we did what we did in Libya to Syria....ISIS was going to still form after we left. Ultimately we would have most likely needed to have a lengthy Iraq style occupation in addition with keeping troops indefinitely in Iraq, that is pretty much the only way you were going to keep ethnic/religious warfare and ISIS controlled. Basically, though, neither the US public or its government was interested in it after a decade of doing it elsewhere, so this was the result. I don't think a Libya was ever really in the cards though. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I'm all ears, point me to a group in Syria that is strong enough to rule over it that won't automatically imply the genocide of some minorities, some "moderate rebels" if you will. I am sure they exist, and in numbers, but these guys aren't certainly winning against Assad, or the Daesh. At this point, right now, there are two sides that can emerge victorious, one is Assad and one is the Daesh. The only world power that could add a third party in the mix, the United States, aren't doing much to do so - in fact, they're practically helping Assad by concentrating their efforts against the Daesh. I reject the idea that "the genocide of some minorities" should necessarily dissuade us from supporting enemies of Assad, since we could conceive of violence against the majority as possibly being worse. That being said, I agree with you. I wrote this over a year ago, when a FSA victory was at least possible: Dilkington posted:The fear is that victory for either side will result in brutal reprisals and ethnic cleansing, yes?. A cynic might say that it is better to see Assad strung up like Mussolini, and Syria returned to majority rule; in that case, it would be mostly a politicized minority that suffered. Not everyone would mourn for them, since it was their brutal repression of the majority that precipitated this conflict, and because they are privileged and so well represented in the government and the military, it is easier for them to escape the country. I would also say that the rebels would be less capable than the army to carry out post-war reprisals since they are fractious and not as well equipt. Victory for the regime will be far more disastrous, because they will have to multiply by many times their brutality, because what they have done is so horrible, they must make sure it can never rebound on them. Not only would ISIL massacre non-Sunnis much more thoroughly than a Rebel coalition, they would target rebels and rebel sympathizers, perhaps more brutally than Assad were he victorious. We can also assume that in the name of combating idolatry ISIL would conduct a campaign of destruction against Syria's cultural heritage sites- a crime against all Muslims and against human culture in general. It pains me that the US did not do more to manage the conflict, because I'm forced to share a position with rightists in Europe and America who supported Assad from the very beginning, never because it would be better for Syria, but because he served their religious and ethnic weltanschauung. Cippalippus posted:Hey let's give total legitimacy to a "religion" founded by a pedo, and full of people who're happy to behead people with kitchen knives or blow themselves up for 70 virgins and a collection of anime in their afterlife. No really it's totally legit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2814612/Islamic-State-fighters-kill-220-Iraqis-tribe-opposed-them.html Hey remember that tribal chief that called the US for help but the US didn't answer the call? Well, 220 of his tribes members ended up in a mass grave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Torpor posted:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-2814612/Islamic-State-fighters-kill-220-Iraqis-tribe-opposed-them.html We don't have forces in the area that are capable of providing the kind of protection that they needed. Strike aircraft and drones are good at blowing stuff up, but not so good at defending territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Maybe he shoulda called for EU help instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
never trust an elf posted:Maybe he shoulda called for EU help instead. A Muslim population under siege? Better send in the Dutch Peacekeepers!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Every time we discuss the merits of an Syrian intervention, can somebody post the link to the foreign policy article on how Assad is linked to the creation of ISIS? Thanks and much love
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Every time we discuss the merits of an Syrian intervention, can somebody post the link to the foreign policy article on how Assad is linked to the creation of ISIS? Thanks and much love What, exactly, would an intervention against Assad in 2011-2012 have to do with the creation of a group that's existed as a significant force since at least 2003? Its revitalization from a period of relative weakness and dormancy after ~2008, maybe, but that has a great deal to do with the collapse of the system of bribes and negotiations sustaining the Sunni Awakening in Iraq and many other factors, and I doubt the messy aftermath of a large scale US intervention into Syria would have hindered it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:We don't have forces in the area that are capable of providing the kind of protection that they needed. Strike aircraft and drones are good at blowing stuff up, but not so good at defending territory. There are not only two options, troops or nothing. In any case literally not answering his urgent phone call is some incredible black comedy. I can just imagine the US representative in a meeting his phone going off and the guy looking at it and apologizing to the other people before saying something like "I don't know the number so it is probably not important". Meanwhile 220 people get executed into mass grave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Every time we discuss the merits of an Syrian intervention, can somebody post the link to the foreign policy article on how Assad is linked to the creation of ISIS? Thanks and much love I got the feeling it is more he allowed ISIS to expand since it meant ISIS would largely expand into his enemies' territory. If Assad was gone, it would more or less be a pretty similar situation, even back in 2012, there were ideological splits among the rebels that would have given ISIS an edge. I don't see ISIS not expanding without a Western ground presence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:I suspect you're american, because your logic is terrible. I'm a healthy British man, and my logic is still much more sound than yours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
The New Black posted:It does a decent job of describing the spiralling sectarian fuckery that always seems to be involved in this kind of situation. It also manages to at least attempt to understand how people end up fighting for IS without simply writing them all off as bloodthirsty monsters, while not apologising for those actions. There are a couple of things I think they missed (there wasn't anything about the role of Assad in the rise of IS for example), but it was only an hour. The most damning thing in the video is when they said it was Obama who pushed for Iraqi Congressional approval of the Status of Forces Agreement and didn't seem to really want it in the first place. I never knew about that, and it shows that the "Maliki never would've agreed to immunity because Iran" defense of Obama's total pullout isn't entirely credible, and people like Dick Cheney actually may have a point when they say Obama could have done more to secure the population before ISIL fully ramped up to current strength. Also that the threat to US oil installations was the real impetus behind the airstrike campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
I'm convinced a partition of Syria and Iraq is now inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm convinced a partition of Syria and Iraq is now inevitable. Will American ground troops be used in Syria when the time comes? I know that's coming eventually for Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Will American ground troops be used in Syria when the time comes? I know that's coming eventually for Iraq. Depends how heavily the Republicans win in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Depends how heavily the Republicans win in the Senate. I don't think Obama will do it, Clinton or whomever will do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I don't think Obama will do it, Clinton or whomever will do it. However, 55 Senators willing to fund it puts the decision out of Obama's hands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I'm convinced a partition of Syria and Iraq is now inevitable. Don't tease me. Post those borders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:However, 55 Senators willing to fund it puts the decision out of Obama's hands. He's the commander-in-chief, the decision is always in his hands. Even if Congress declares war, Obama could restrict it to air strikes, and literally no one could stop him without him leaving office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Don't tease me. The borders will draw themself. Your actions determine how your new nation is recognized. uninterrupted posted:He's the commander-in-chief, the decision is always in his hands. You don't seem to fully understand Obama's position in American politics and how very much very many individuals would like him to leave office.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The borders will draw themself. Your actions determine how your new nation is recognized. So you don't favour an actual organized partition, just a massive free-for-all with the international community stepping in after x people have died to hold up the hands of the "winner". As a policy that amount's to "gently caress it, this poo poo is too hard"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:So you don't favour an actual organized partition, just a massive free-for-all with the international community stepping in after x people have died to hold up the hands of the "winner". Worked in India. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:So you don't favour an actual organized partition, just a massive free-for-all with the international community stepping in after x people have died to hold up the hands of the "winner". An "organized partition" would involve genocide to which American chemical manufacturing firms are directly party. Truth be told, there really have never been any "organized" partitions in the world--its more about setting the ground rules for partition, then letting the actors divide up the land as best they are able. E: Zeroisanumber posted:Worked in India. Yes, its a policy recognition of "gently caress it, this poo poo is inevitable and unstopable." Just a general reminder: Even Ghandi favored genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:An "organized partition" would involve genocide to which American chemical manufacturing firms are directly party. Truth be told, there really have never been any "organized" partitions in the world--its more about setting the ground rules for partition, then letting the actors divide up the land as best they are able. Ground rules: There are no rules. Grab what you can. First group to purge Baghdad wins a prize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Ground rules: There are no rules. Grab what you can. First group to purge Baghdad wins a prize. There are rules. 1. Sunni groups can't take minority women as sex slaves and then brag about it on TV 2. Any group that publicly beheads Americans will get bombed if they don't apologize 3. No nukes without prior authorization 4. Complete liquidation of Kurdish groups is unacceptable 5. The spice must flow 6. The spice must flow 7. The spice must flow 8. No use of chemical weapons without prior, if secret, authorization 9. Jordan, Israel, KSA, and Kuwait are off-limits 10. The spice must flow
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
11. Two sects enter. One sect leaves
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:11. Two sects enter. One sect leaves Sorry, that violates rules 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I reject the idea that "the genocide of some minorities" should necessarily dissuade us from supporting enemies of Assad, since we could conceive of violence against the majority as possibly being worse. That being said, I agree with you. It might surprise you that I'm all but a rightist, as I've said before I'm a supporter of the swiss green party. I don't find hard to reconcile my leftist views about cultures and welcoming the others with my intense dislike for a religion whose members, at least here where I live, march hand in hand with neo-fascists to deny basic rights to LGBT community members: http://www.quibrescia.it/cms/2014/06/09/centro-islamico-e-sentinelle-in-piedi-unite-contro-i-gay/ For different reasons, I agree that US failed to manage the situation. Obama on one hand showed that his words are worth nothing and on the other proved that he hasn't got the faintest clue of what diplomacy is, or how it works. He had a masterpiece of diplomacy at hand, appease Russia and Iran and normalize relations with them, probably ousting Assad in the process; instead, he looked like a jackass to the world and like a weakling to his enemies. Had he not said anything about Syria, no one could say a thing about it, but after posturing and huffing and puffing he couldn't. You can't just enter in other powers' spheres of influence, if tomorrow Iran became a secular democracy and the most perfect republic in the world, would the USA stop an Iranian invasion of Saudi Arabia if their aim were to bring down an oppressive regime? Ceteris paribus, it's what Obama wanted to do, but at some point it became clear that it was just a bluff. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:It might surprise you that I'm all but a rightist, as I've said before I'm a supporter of the swiss green party. I don't find hard to reconcile my leftist views about cultures and welcoming the others with my intense dislike for a religion whose members, at least here where I live, march hand in hand with neo-fascists to deny basic rights to LGBT community members: http://www.quibrescia.it/cms/2014/06/09/centro-islamico-e-sentinelle-in-piedi-unite-contro-i-gay/  coming from someone whose political party is primarily funded by eastern european facists aside, you show a reasonable and nuanced understanding of the core issues.Funny enough, we're about to witness the Arab Spring occur in Africa.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
You realize that half of the Arab Spring was in Africa already? And we're headed more towards an ebola spring, if anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Obama is not getting impeached you idiot
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
The-Mole posted:You realize that half of the Arab Spring was in Africa already? And we're headed more towards an ebola spring, if anything. Sub-Saharan. North Africa is a whole different beast. SedanChair posted:Obama is not getting impeached you idiot He is if he refuses to execute the lawful order of Congress to prosecute a war against a threat to America with the tools that Congress has afforded him. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Lebanon is closing its border to refugees. Syrian refugees currently make up 1/4 of Lebanons population, and tensions haven't really let up since the fighting in Arsal. Was to be expected sooner or later I suppose. http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/10/6315/lebanon-closes-borders-syrian-refugees-surge-numbers/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
I know there's a few Senators salivating for a fresh wave of American troops to occupy the Middle East, but I have to assume even if they had the senate so long as they don't have the Presidency they'd be reluctant to pull the trigger. Just for starters, there's the problem that if the war goes well the President is credited for prosecuting it well, while if it goes poorly Congress will take the blame for calling for it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
Dolash posted:I know there's a few Senators salivating for a fresh wave of American troops to occupy the Middle East, but I have to assume even if they had the senate so long as they don't have the Presidency they'd be reluctant to pull the trigger. Just for starters, there's the problem that if the war goes well the President is credited for prosecuting it well, while if it goes poorly Congress will take the blame for calling for it in the first place. Who thinks the war with American boots on the ground would go well? If it goes poorly, Democrats get blamed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Congress is definitely right around the corner from authorizing the use of ground troops in the middle east in the current political environment. Wouldn't be political suicide at all, and Obama's approval rating would free fall if he refused to do it. A thing someone believes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:It might surprise you that I'm all but a rightist, as I've said before I'm a supporter of the swiss green party. Oh great, not only are you loving insane, you're a hippy as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:An "organized partition" would involve genocide to which American chemical manufacturing firms are directly party. Truth be told, there really have never been any "organized" partitions in the world--its more about setting the ground rules for partition, then letting the actors divide up the land as best they are able. Wait so do you think we should still execute the Tamerlane Option in Afghanistan or is it too late for that one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 09:25
|
|
