|
Typo posted:No true leftists Except for leftists pretty much always being against big powers bombing poo poo and liberals usually support it. Only reason they hated Iraq was that the wrong team was waving the flag, they supported the poo poo out of LBJ for a looooong time in vietnam. It wasn't until loving 1968 that you had less supporters than opposition, a little bit longer from escalation than Iraq but you are comparing 50k+ US conscripted kids dying to 5000 professional soldiers. No true ____ arguments are pretty dumb in general because they can be used for anything. Someone could use it if someone corrected them because they called Obama a communist.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 19, 2026 08:59 |
|
|
Yeah, if anything D&D and SA in general has moved much further to the right over time. The aftermath of LF has mostly faded and the forums more or less returned to the way they were during the mid-00s. If anything the theme of thread seems to be more about leftie-baiting than anything related to leftism. American liberalism usually has been pretty robustly interventionist anyway, there weren't many liberals condemning Clinton for bombing Belgrade. That said, in the US, moderate leftists more or less claim the left because it is very weak. I remember a poster around here saying he was a leftist because he was strongly pro-Obama. Anyway, as far as actual US policy, the big restraint isn't public opinion but cash. Congress is interested in domestic politics and ideology more than anything and beyond that Obama is quite a budget hawk himself. So you got a situation where the US is trying to handle multiple conflicts on a budget and the results are predictable. I could see more not less chaos occurring in Syria and Iraq in the meantime, even if ISIS is defeat, the US won't put the type of effort it would take to whip up an army to handle the situation (and it maybe just can't period). So even if the rebels make advances against a weakened ISIS/Assad, it isn't going to be enough and they are most likely too disunited to ever truly capitalize on the situation without falling into infighting. Also, it is quite likely, the situation in Iraq will if anything get even messier if Iran walks away from the negotiation table. It is pretty telling that Obama was referencing Yemen as something that "success" would look like. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, if anything D&D and SA in general has moved much further to the right over time. The aftermath of LF has mostly faded and the forums more or less returned to the way they were during the mid-00s. Am I the only one who remembers all the Paulies and self-identified Republicans from around that time? Pure strain gold and all that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Am I the only one who remembers all the Paulies and self-identified Republicans from around that time? Pure strain gold and all that? No, I do as well. To claim that this subforum, at least, is swinging back to where it was when the Puppytar brigade still existed is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:No, I do as well. To claim that this subforum, at least, is swinging back to where it was when the Puppytar brigade still existed is ludicrous. Puppytar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Am I the only one who remembers all the Paulies and self-identified Republicans from around that time? Pure strain gold and all that? GBS is pretty grim these days. Maybe not Paulites but it is certainly something else, if anything socially it is maybe more right than it ever was. quote:No, I do as well. To claim that this subforum, at least, is swinging back to where it was when the Puppytar brigade still existed is ludicrous. In the case of libertarians, they died out around here, but so have most of the left as well. You more or less have US Democrats/liberals at this point. I notice in most regional politics threads, usually economics/materialism about has dropped off the face of the map of the discussion in exchange for the usual moralizing over geopolitics. D&D at this point is very clearly "Post-LF." Ardennes fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Madmarker posted:Puppytar? Back in the early-ish 2000s, it was in vogue for libertarian posters, and other right-wingers to a lesser extent, to have puppy-based avatars. I have no idea why. Ardennes posted:In the case of libertarians, they died out around here, but so have most of the left as well. You more or less have US Democrats/liberals at this point. I notice in most regional politics threads, usually economics has dropped off the face of the map of the discussion in exchange for the usual moralizing over geopolitics. From my perspective, there were however far more and louder libertarians than we've ever had actual lefties (here, I except many of the LF crew who were just fake-posting in the style of Maoist-TWs because that was the done thing, along with dancing to the Hate American beat). So while yeah, it's not like this place is a bastion of revolutionary or even reformist leftism, I still don't see it having returned to the zeitgeist of the Bush II years. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Back in the early-ish 2000s, it was in vogue for libertarian posters, and other right-wingers to a lesser extent, to have puppy-based avatars. I have no idea why. Well I guess its better than MLP avatars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Much like Voldemort’s life force after he attempts to kill Harry Potter as a baby, ISIS’s ideology will not die just because its host body is decimated. "I hold a BA in history from Brandeis, a JD from NYU, a masters in Middle Eastern Studies from Harvard, and a Ph.D. in political science from Georgetown (yes, I am a sucker for punishment)." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
What is this flag? I found it in this Vox article. Sorry for the size of the image.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Kenny Loggins?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
inquis eisenhorn posted:Logistics of that aside that would probably end in Russians heavy "accidental" bombing of moderate Syrian rebels. Just as US bombing of IS in Syria would "accidentally" hit SAA units. There are some other pretty congent arguments to make against a "Grand anti IS alliance". Historically, there are numerous examples where such Grand alliances existed, and failed clearly or even epically. Most popular would be the Russian Civil War (There was a huge anti bolshevik alliance), and the 7 years war (huge anti Prussian alliance). One of the big reasons was that, in the 7 year war, Saxon General waited on the Imperial General waited on the Austrians, the Austrian waited on the French, the French waited on the Russians. Meanwhile, Frederick turned his army into one big wrecking ball, and used internal lines of movement and communication to, often succesfully, whack one opponent after the other. Even when this didnt work (battles vs the Russians, who took Berlin), it was still enough to keep fighting. In the Russian Civil War, the Japanese waited on the Siberian Whites, who waited on the US expedition, who waited on the Brits and French, who waited on the South Russian whites, who waited on the Ukrainian Nationalists, who waited on the Poles (order isnt correct, but you get the drift). Again, the communists were, like Frederick, able to build up their forces, concentrate them, and defeat their enemies in detail. When this didnt work (with Poland most notably) that nevertheless didnt knock them out. I can totally see such a waiting game, allowing IS to train, concentrate, arm and knock out Shias/non IS Sunnis/Kurds/SAA in detail. Because all of them want to husband their forces for the battles "after IS". Frankly, in a (Edit:) hypothetic "great anti IS alliance" including the SAA and the FSA, the cooperation between Russia and the US would be the least of that alliances problems. Opposition to IS is after all more disparate than opposition to the Soviet Communists. Seriously, if you look at credible reports of IS setting up working administrations in territory they control, together with total ruthlessness in battle, well, they really remind me of the Red Guards in the Russian civil war, and the implications of that scare the hell out of me. Mightypeon fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
radical meme posted:What is this flag? The portrait is of Husayn ibn Ali. Don't know what it's saying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
The top line of text says 'Oh Fatima Zahra we will never forget Hussain!' referring to the Battle of Karbala, fairly standard Shi'i fare The fighter is from the Peace Brigades, the current iteration of the Mahdi Army, not sure more specifically than that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Zohar posted:The top line of text says 'Oh Fatima Zahra we will never forget Hussain!' referring to the Battle of Karbala, fairly standard Shi'i fare So it's a Shia flag, not a Sunni flag? If so, my opinion of Vox just went down if they don't know the difference between the two because that picture is posted in relation to an article about ISIS. Or is the symbolism universal to both sects?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So it's a Shia flag, not a Sunni flag? If so, my opinion of Vox just went down if they don't know the difference between the two because that picture is posted in relation to an article about ISIS. Or is the symbolism universal to both sects? To be fair the caption on the original article says they're from a 'Shia cleric militia' but I agree it might seem disingenuous. In this case it's very definitely Shi'i, the picture of Imam Hussain alone would be enough to tell that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Apparently the anti- ISIL Coalition is a 'No Iran' club - the same old men making the same mistakes 13 years later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Apparently the anti- ISIL Coalition is a 'No Iran' club - the same old men making the same mistakes 13 years later. As I posted, there may be valid reasons for that. I really doubt that the reasons I stated influenced the decision Washington decision making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Apparently the anti- ISIL Coalition is a 'No Iran' club - the same old men making the same mistakes 13 years later. Iran is not going to have any involvement in a coalition that is exploring aiding the opposition, obviously. If it's a no Assad club, it's a no Iran club.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:America cannot afford the risk for its nuclear deterrance falling under the wims of non-secular state actors. Whether Erdogan is acting superficially to maintain power, or if he is a true believer, is considered answered by his willingness to arm non-secular actors. Simply, Erdogan must be made to realize that red groups to America are American redlines, or he will be made to through all soft and hard capabilities and potentials of NATO. ISIS is still holding 49 turkish hostages and any overtly hostile action may result in their deaths. Also there is a certain American ally prone to arming jihadi-crazies, but that country is not Turkey. Alternatives to Erdogan are as follows: rabidly anti-kurd Pennsylvanian islamist led judiciary-police gladio/cult (reduced to calling hellfire on Erdogans head as of now), rabidly anti-kurd laicist*-nationalists, rabidly anti-kurd nationalist-nationalists**. None of which can win fair elections for obvious reasons. HDP is a decent political actor though (PKK's softer, smarter face) *laicism as in you are free to be a sunni but not alevi, non-muslim or too sunni. Coup tally:3+. Minorities hosed over:5. (in chronological order Armenians,jews from thrace, alevis from dersim, Rums from Istanbul, Kurds in general.) **grey wolves sprung from loins of she-wolf asena. protectors of sacred turkish vatan every inch soggy with martyr blood.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Iran is not going to have any involvement in a coalition that is exploring aiding the opposition, obviously. If it's a no Assad club, it's a no Iran club. Hmm, may even end up a no Iraqi goverment club which is where things go into surreal lala land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
There was a botched assassination attempt against SRF commander Jamal Maarouf today, in which four attackers were killed. Someone is really making a concerted effort to knock out rebel leadership.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the rebel brigades are thoroughly infested with informers who are working at cross purposes with their supposed leaders. It's not like a lot of them are hard to join. Pick up a rifle, say the right things and you're pretty much in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Seriously, IS is doing the Red Guard Civil War playbook. In a way they are better positioned for that then the Red Guards, because the Red Guards couldnt effortlessly use "somewhat suspect joiners" as suicide bombers without any backlash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the regime has infiltrated a lot of the rebels brigades as well, though their operatives aren't going to blow themselves up to score kills. I'd be interested of the extent to which different rebel brigades spy on each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
Some people are already claiming -- yet without evidence -- that it was an Ahrar attack in retribution for SRF allegedly being behind the attack on Ahrar. Honestly the whole situation is so opaque it's almost feasible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
It really is amazing how stupid the 2003 invasion of Iraq was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It really is amazing how stupid the 2003 invasion of Iraq was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Apparently the anti- ISIL Coalition is a 'No Iran' club - the same old men making the same mistakes 13 years later. If, by 13 years ago, you're referring to the invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian and American forces coordinated closely for that. There were even American SOF in Iranian ops centers working on taking Herat, Zaranj and other western Afghan cities, and some Iranian and American joint operations in Herat and Farah. There was actually a good deal of coordination there. It died when the Iraq war drum started beating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Ok so that was a bad idea. What kind of anti-ISIS coalition should be built then? Should arms to the moderates and continued bombing be the absolute end of american engagement? Because that will never suffice. How about..recuiting moderate muslim youths from Europe to form a sort of international volunteer legion and supplying them with training and high quality arms. Like a secular version of ISIS. A few thousand men could probably be raised this way. It`s better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Why does IS need a coalition against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why does IS need a coalition against it. Cost-sharing measure. They may be an evil empire, its not like we can fight them with the budget we used against the evil empire. E: There are costs in terms of time, money, and lives; insurance risks use the dollar as a common denominator in calculating this. In recent years, America has seen a severe reduction in the budget of American lives willing to be spent in pursuit of foreign policy goals. Therefore, we must fill the shortfall in the budget of lives with our dollars. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:Ok so that was a bad idea. What kind of anti-ISIS coalition should be built then? Should arms to the moderates and continued bombing be the absolute end of american engagement? Because that will never suffice. How about..recuiting moderate muslim youths from Europe to form a sort of international volunteer legion and supplying them with training and high quality arms. Like a secular version of ISIS. A few thousand men could probably be raised this way. It`s better than nothing. Anybody willing to go fight is most likely radicalized already, or they wouldn't be willing to go fight. The best solution is to push for Sunni autonomy in Anbar, Salah ad Din and Nineveh, and then have the Sunni tribes of Iraq and Syria (Dulaimi, Janabi, Qarghuli, et al) push out ISIS in exchange for said autonomy. ISIS has no real strength without the cooperation and permissive environment of the Sunni tribes. Right now, the tribes just see ISIS as the lesser of two evils vs. the Shi'ite government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why does IS need a coalition against it. Because they picked certain options in some events that gave them a bazillion aggresive expansion points with all neighbours and all sphere leaders of the neighbours that are in a sphere, in return for prestige and extra manpower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why does IS need a coalition against it. Because the US is pissed that none of the major actors in the area will lift a finger to save their own asses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Because they picked certain options in some events that gave them a bazillion aggresive expansion points with all neighbours and all sphere leaders of the neighbours that are in a sphere, in return for prestige and extra manpower. This makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why does IS need a coalition against it. Because the literal alternative is unilateral action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because the literal alternative is unilateral action. That alternative was ruled out as too costly at this time. It could still be used if our coalition partners show themselves for the cow-towing, ransom-paying cowards they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because the literal alternative is unilateral action. I certainly see the value of coalition-building in many cases, but to paint unilateral action as an evil in and of itself is disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 19, 2026 08:59 |
|
|
NAPALM STICKS TO posted:I certainly see the value of coalition-building in many cases, but to paint unilateral action as an evil in and of itself is disingenuous. Sure, but given the history of American unilateral action in the Near East recently, you can imagine Obama's deliberately trying to be a little more cautious than his idiot boy prince predecessor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 23:43
|
|