What the fuck re: Syria

[WillburForce]

I guess its a smoke screen buying time. Assad doesn't want a US strike (ldo), but he has 0% intention of losing his power. He'll hand over some, then try and beat the uprising without them. If this don't work he'll use them again fo sho.

[jackvance]

Am I the only one thinking this could all be part of Obama's cunning plan?

He has been putting himself on the line, even in a lot of ways personally, to bomb Assad. He'll lose major face if he doesn't get to.

[a500lbgorilla]

Obama should call the Syrian-Russian plan utter rubbish to force them to act to prove that they're forfeiting all chemical weapons.

Then move to hammer out a handshake and vague agreement as to what constitutes enough for the US not to strike.

Then if you want to strike still, declare that Syria violated the agreement on whatever grounds.

'Look weak' and 'save face' are kind of farcical ideas, imo. Obama just cares not to be seen as a constitution shredding warmonger lest he face a similar fate as the exiled GWB. I'm pretty sure 'look weak' is just something you can say to bolster your position that no one can possibly vet. A suggestion that the boogiemen of the world may finally realize that striking America could work if ever they were to realize that our military is a paper dragon and its leadership incapable.

[spoonitnow]

Obama just cares not to be seen as a constitution shredding warmonger

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

NSA anyone?

[a500lbgorilla]

Not to be seen as isn't the same as not being

[ISillyDurrrAK]

[wufwugy]

Obama probably doesn't care much about his "face" in this, and he doesn't have to bomb to keep it. Successful diplomacy that involves Russia is a far better outcome than airstrikes without Russia. The way into the 21st Century is to intertwine the globe more, and US/Russia diplomatic solutions on this issue help that quite a lot.

Still have no opinion on the NSA thing. I have yet to see non-hyperbole or anybody actually get harmed by it, so I don't care. Let the government collect whatever the fuck they want as long as it's not admissible in court. They probably view themselves as massive underdogs in this, given that there is colossal amounts of info and pretty much no way of sifting through it. It ain't an issue the government will win though. Not in America. Half the country was founded on principles of individualism and isolationism

[oskar]

Boy am I glad that this situation is now entirely resolved!

[boost]

Obama probably doesn't care much about his "face" in this, and he doesn't have to bomb to keep it. Successful diplomacy that involves Russia is a far better outcome than airstrikes without Russia. The way into the 21st Century is to intertwine the globe more, and US/Russia diplomatic solutions on this issue help that quite a lot.

Still have no opinion on the NSA thing. I have yet to see non-hyperbole or anybody actually get harmed by it, so I don't care. Let the government collect whatever the fuck they want as long as it's not admissible in court. They probably view themselves as massive underdogs in this, given that there is colossal amounts of info and pretty much no way of sifting through it. It ain't an issue the government will win though. Not in America. Half the country was founded on principles of individualism and isolationism

Nah, you've got this one wrong. People are rightfully paranoid. The tech to sift through it may not quite be there yet, but it's not far off, and it most certainly will be developed. And this is the same as WMD's, in that if the power over it were to fall into the wrong hands (a totalitarian government, an overzealous NSA/CIA/FBi, etc,) it would do a lot of harm. This was something the founding fathers got right; unwarranted search an seizure puts way too much power in the hands of those in power, and that is why there was a check against that power put in the constitution.

Your stance isn't quite as bad as, but is very close to, "if you don't have anything to hide.."

[wufwugy]

Nah, you've got this one wrong. People are rightfully paranoid. The tech to sift through it may not quite be there yet, but it's not far off, and it most certainly will be developed. And this is the same as WMD's, in that if the power over it were to fall into the wrong hands (a totalitarian government, an overzealous NSA/CIA/FBi, etc,) it would do a lot of harm. This was something the founding fathers got right; unwarranted search an seizure puts way too much power in the hands of those in power, and that is why there was a check against that power put in the constitution.

Your stance isn't quite as bad as, but is very close to, "if you don't have anything to hide.."

I'm open to the probability I'm wrong on this, partly because I straight up do not care about it. I don't care because at the merest hint of violation of privacy, Americans are up in arms. No matter if it makes sense, no matter if anybody is affected by it, no matter what else is going on. If the government is snooping, US citizens will give up anything and everything to focus on it.

Getting me to care about this requires two steps: 1) seeing journalism that isn't sensationalism and instead explains the real violations and how we know they're violations, and 2) a strong enough argument that it's bad that the NSA can read your emails

I don't give a fuck if they can read my emails. They're not going to because I'm not interesting to them and instead they will just pile them in a warehouse, never to be heard of again. And even if they did, can they use it in court or to get a warrant? I have a hard time viewing the former as a problem; it's more like something people get upset about yet don't have substantiated reasons to be, but the latter is worth being mad over. I have yet to hear about anybody who has been adversely affected by the NSA snooping, and I doubt I ever will unless the laws give them jurisdiction

What pisses me off is that we have some serious problems in this country, but nobody cares about those when they know their phone calls are being recorded. They forget the recordings are also being dumped into an abyss. Self-centered wannabe rockstar Americans think they're the center of everything and that the government is spying on them. It's been about ten years since the Patriot Act that was supposed to have shredded the Constitution. Has anything bad happened from that? I don't mean any platitudes; I mean actual bad things for innocent people. If not, maybe that means everybody who gets so mad about these things are actually the ones who are wrong.

Maybe they have. I've never actually seen anybody make that case. It's all just a bunch of worthless platitudes. If the predicted bad things never seem to happen, it's time to reevaluate the veracity of the predicted bad things

[boost]

What defines "interesting"? Now what if it changes? The NSA does not need the court to make your life miserable.

Now you've went from making an argument almost as bad as "well, I have nothing to hide" to actually making the argument "well, I have nothing to hide." This is always, has always, and will always be a terrible stance to take. Think about it.

Once you're privy to what someone doesn't want you to see, it's quite easy to then back track into a warrant. That is why we have protections against unwarranted search and seizure. If they could search your home whenever they wanted-- first they could harass you all they want, and second they could easily show probable cause once they've found what they want.

I'm tipsy and tired, so I'll leave you with this: Since the Patriot Act, a significant number of people have been indefinitely added to a list. Once on this list, you are far more likely to be subject to more intensive searches by the TSA. You may miss flights, or you may just be humiliated. There is no known way to be removed from this list, there is no appeal, there are children on this list who will likely be on it their entire lives. Like I said, I'm tired, so I won't keep going, but really, if that's not sufficient for you, I worry about you.

[Pigmond]

Hate warmongerers

[spoonitnow]

lol now who's trolling, jesus christ wuf

[WillburForce]

Wuf has out-spooned the Spoon.

[Galapogos]

You went full spoon, you never go full spoon.

[spoonitnow]

You went full spoon, you never go full spoon.

qft

[wufwugy]

I was asking for explanation on why the NSA stuff is what people say it is. So far all I've seen are platitudes.

I'm not making the "I have nothing to hide argument". I'm making the "they're not reading your emails unless you're somebody they suspect of hiding things for other reasons, so why do you care more about this than anything else?" argument. And I'm only making that argument for the purpose of perspective, not about whether it's right or wrong.

TSA searches since a law passed isn't particularly relevent. If they did things based on that law then it probably would be. Air travel was fucked up in exactly the same ways it is now since forever. It's just to a higher quantity now. Pretty sure the law for TSA has nothing to do with the Patriot Act

Indefinite detentions aren't from the Patriot Act.

Give me some examples of the NSA snooping harming people. I never said I support it, I said people get sand shoved up their assholes on spying regardless of how minor any of the negatives are, yet tend to care little about things that are harming millions relentlessly. It's a priorities issue.

I didn't say what the NSA is doing is good or not a problem. I said we need to call it exactly what it is, and I don't see anybody doing that. All I see is misinformation and exaggeration. I'm not trolling, I'm looking for answers

[boost]

you are making such awful arguments that I'm about ready to stop responding. You're far to sharp to say things like "give me an example of an over reaching intelligence service ever doing anyone any harm."

And I am finding it hard to differentiate between "I have nothing to hide" and "they're not reading your emails unless you're somebody they suspect of hiding things for other reasons, so why do you care more about this than anything else?"

I've made very specific arguments. Unwarranted search and seizure is a bad thing. You are saying "Why is it bad? Who's been hurt? They'll only look at the info they've seized without a warrant if they decide to."

Then you go on to make the "Syria: no one cares; Affleck is Batman: everyone loses their goddamn mind" argument. It's a bad argument. There are lots of things to care about, and people are incapable of divvying up their social awareness and activism capacities in descending order of objective importance. Some people are going to get riled up about this, and others about that. Hopefully the largest quantity of riled people will be allotted to the cause with the most merit. I almost feel dumb for having spelled that out.

You're position is akin to an anti-regulation economist who will stand in the face of the financial crisis and claim that we don't need regulation, because, "look, the economy is getting better, the markets are on the rise, why change anything?" No one needs to point to a current abuse to win the debate against you, that's an absurd requirement if you have even the slightest knowledge of history.

[boost]

Oh, and data analytics is advancing by leaps and bounds. The trawling of the database is going to become as simple as a google search. But what happens when they cast the net too wide? Terrorist groups are known to be involved in the drug trade. Is a drug dealer therefore part of the terrorist's support network? I know you're familiar with the concept of mission creep...

[wufwugy]

I didn't intend to present the viewpoint as if it was something I wanted to argue. I meant to illustrate that by ridiculing people for exaggeration and misdirection, but it didn't come off well

"Unwarranted search and seizure is a bad thing" is a thesis. I was looking for substantiation of that thesis. Actually, I wasn't asking for anything because if I cared I would try to find it myself.

NSA shouldn't be allowed to record emails, but it's funny that people are so bent out of shape over it because nothing is being done with those emails. A good place to start when showing that what the NSA is doing is a problem is delineate a legal process by which they can hurt innocent people. What we have now is hypotheticals and hyperbole. I wasn't even accusing you of that or anybody on this board.

[boost]

Evolution is just a theory.

[eugmac]

Vladimir Putin gets an article published in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...anted=all&_r=0

[jackvance]

Evolution is just a theory.

*strangles boost*

[kworm2013]

Don't angry too much

[Tom1559]

Something I decided a long time ago was to stay out of politics and religion.

[ponn4ik]

"Make Love, Not War".

[Chelle]

Vladimir Putin gets an article published in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...anted=all&_r=0

Besides the whole him being anti-homosexual - he doesn't seem that bad of a dude.

[eberetta1]

Looks like staying out of Syria was the right answer after all. Me thinks if Syria really used chemical weapons on their own people, that it would still be continuing.

[wufwugy]

Besides the whole him being anti-homosexual - he doesn't seem that bad of a dude.

Ol Pootie Poot's nytimes op-ed from 1999 arguing the opposite stance, defending his military intervention in Chechnya http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/op...-must-act.html

BTW his rampant homophobia isn't so much a Putin thing but a Russia thing. They have fierce propaganda on the issue that arose out of the country's family crisis created by low birth rates and emigration. The country is shrinking and the economy and citizen morale suffer greatly because of it. The state does everything it can to get the people to breed more and part of that is vilifying homosexuality because it doesn't create children. Many Russians believe that homosexuality is a sinister plot of the West to destroy Russia by reducing their births.

Most Russians are poorly educated and were raised in the Soviet Union, where the propaganda machines were what North Korea's are today. To us, the homosexuality issue makes them look behind the times, but that's kinda the least of their problems. Russia will not be able to address such bourgeois concerns like sexual orientation until their economy grows steadily and they no longer have to worry about basic necessities like reliable shelter and safety. Russians have been leaving in droves since the collapse of the Soviet Union because of how bad the economy is, and this perpetual emigration just makes things worse for those who stay

[eugmac]

Ya a Russian told me, you think Putin's a horrible dictator? We've all got the Stalin-gene in us, and we've got it worse than Putin. You've got to worry when one us average Russians takes control...

[a500lbgorilla]

A healthy bit of hindsight working here, but Kerry should have said that the Russian proposal is in-feasable because Assad will naturally begin dispersing his chemical weapons once we announced our intentions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...713553794.html

Actions which would certainly demonstrate his continued intentions of using these weapons to harm Syrians. That should have been our position before we stepped up to the table because once you make the first concession so easily, the other side'll be looking for more...

With Assad adding demands like:
ASSAD CALLS FOR ISRAEL TO DISPOSE OF WMD (!)
ASSAD: 'REBELS MAY USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST ISRAEL AS PROVOCATION'
ASSAD SAYS CHEMCIAL ARMS DEAL DEPENDS ON US STOPPING AID TO TERRORISTS
ASSAD SAYS WILL COMPLETE DEAL ONLY IF US STOPS "POLICY OF THREATS"
ASSAD ACCUSES TURKEY, SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR OF SUPPORTING TERRORISTS IN SYRIA
ASSAD EXPECTS TO START HANDING OVER INFO ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS ONE MONTH AFTER JOINING OPCW
ASSAD: 'ANY WAR AGAINST SYRIA WILL BECOME A WAR THAT WILL DESTROY THE WHOLE REGION'
ASSAD: 'NO COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PRIMARILY ISRAEL, SHOULD HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'
SYRIA TO SEND DOCUMENTS TO UN, CHEMICAL WEAPONS GROUP SOON
ASSAD SAYS IMPLEMENTATION OF DEAL MAY TAKE A MONTH OR MORE


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...aid-terrorists

Gonna be fun seeing how these negotiations move forward

"The words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough," Kerry declared as he stood beside Lavrov. "This is not a game."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=221972602

[wufwugy]

Some serious politics going on here.

Looks like a deal is cut with Russia. This is great, and probably what the administration wanted the whole time. A peaceful, diplomatic solution with Russia strengthens international ties and gives more leverage when dealing with other misbehaving states like Iran. The closer US works with Russia on the issue of WMD, the better. My guess is Obama's posturing is calculated. All he seems to want to do is say how much he's going to bomb Syria regardless. The credibility of his threat pushes the need for a diplomatic solution from those who don't want Syria bombed.

Everybody says politicians are stupid. A couple are, but most aren't. When Congressional Republicans vote a hundred or whatever times they have to defund Obamacare, it isn't because they think it will work or that they even care that much in the first place. It's because the Tea Party base is actively primarying any Republicans who don't hate Obamacare as much as they do. Over the last few years, many Republican politicians have moved significantly to the right yet have still lost their seat to somebody further right. So in defense they do things like vote to defund Obamacare weekly just so they can go to their base and say "see, I hate him as much as you do."

It's ironic that pundits and voters ridicule politicians for doing these sorts of things. It's only because the pundits and voters are themselves irrational that the politicians erect the facade

[a500lbgorilla]

I have a hard time believing Obama had much foresight in this situation. I think he was convinced by some far-seeing people that the US needed to maintain a commitment to stand in these spots to leverage future situations in that region. And, at the same time, he didn't want to walk down the same path as GWB even though he needed to take a step or two in that direction. So his hedge was to declare his position and hot-potato it on over to congress.

I think the idea is that if we just let this situation pass by, we leave value on the table in the sense that China nor Russia can do shit about a US-UK-France kinetic offensive. So we can weaken our adversaries while also maintaining a valuable commitment to weakening any non-ally in the world (removing WMDs from anyone but our buds).

Our continued commitment and willingness to mobilize our forces to strike Assad for his WMD use (at a publically unwilling time for most involved) sends the message that we'll do it all over again next time - Iran I'm looking at you. The hope is that it's an unambiguous message that says stepping out of turn is gonna get you summa Uncle Sam. Which drives everyone back towards equilibrium - "Let's no one be too hasty here, yes?"

That said, this agreement is a slam dunk. We maintain the facade of our commitment through a time when we really don't want to, Assad agrees to forfeit his cache, Russia maintains its interests in the middle east, and one horrid-horrid war is kept quarantined from the world-proper. Life goes on unphased.

I really want to see what Romney would have done in this spot.

A reason why I like this commitment idea is because it's an extension of what the (R)s do. They keep themselves firmly committed to their ends which forces more malleable actors to concede time and time again. And the (R)s do it without many bullets in the chamber (or maybe one, and the barrel pressed to their temple) - the US can do it with a military apparatus logistically capable of touching anyone any where and the requisite economy and central bank to feed it. Only thing holding the US back are those damned citizens!

[a500lbgorilla]

Hahaha from reddit "Russia and US relations"

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/226104...-in-syrias-war

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_filkins

About the Quds - Iranian spy-special forces - which are running the show for Assad (with the aid of a huge lump of cash from Iran at a time when economic sanctions are squeezing Iran).

Pretty crazy description of things going on in the Middle East, if you were interested.

[a500lbgorilla]

Hey,

You.

Read this.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_filkins

Then pound a few brewskis and hit the streets to talk about American foreign policy and the *real reasons* we fucked up in Iraq. It'll be grand.

[wufwugy]

thanks for reposting that. wanted to check them out but didnt on account of being swamped at the time i saw

[a500lbgorilla]

I still haven't digested it. It's good.

[wufwugy]

Is the NSA reading emails? If not, the debate is over, the Constitution doesn't protect citizens from just intersecting copies and collecting them. The Fourth doesn't protect from that sort of data collection because it's neither a search nor a seizure, and it probably isn't "their effects"

Like I've said, I don't care enough about this issue to know precisely what is going on, but if it's that people are crying Fourth Amendment violations because of the government monitoring their activity, they're wrong. It's got nothing to do with monitoring or even replicating data, but does about searching that data or seizing it

Could be wrong on that, but pretty sure I'm not

[a500lbgorilla]

NSA ain't playing this game.

Suleimani. Qasam Suleimami. That's how legit this cat is. I spelt his name right from memory.

[wufwugy]

Oh I haven't gotten to those yet. Soon!

[a500lbgorilla]

So good

[spoonitnow]

Is the NSA reading emails? If not, the debate is over, the Constitution doesn't protect citizens from just intersecting copies and collecting them. The Fourth doesn't protect from that sort of data collection because it's neither a search nor a seizure, and it probably isn't "their effects"

Like I've said, I don't care enough about this issue to know precisely what is going on, but if it's that people are crying Fourth Amendment violations because of the government monitoring their activity, they're wrong. It's got nothing to do with monitoring or even replicating data, but does about searching that data or seizing it

Could be wrong on that, but pretty sure I'm not

They are reading emails. They've announced a number of times that people have illegally used their shit to read the emails of their spouses to spy on them. Unfortunately, I'm not making that up.

[wufwugy]

They are reading emails. They've announced a number of times that people have illegally used their shit to read the emails of their spouses to spy on them. Unfortunately, I'm not making that up.

I heard of those instances, but are they official NSA business? How is an NSA employee reading emails on his own time, breaking the rules, any different than a line cook who picks a steak up off the floor and cooks it? I understand that NSA employees shouldn't be reading emails, but if that's against NSA policy, then it doesn't mean the NSA is breaking the rules. Politicians and other public employees constantly break the Constitution, but they don't do so legally. Unless this reading of emails is different, it's the same sort of thing

[wufwugy]

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/25/226104...-in-syrias-war

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_filkins

About the Quds - Iranian spy-special forces - which are running the show for Assad (with the aid of a huge lump of cash from Iran at a time when economic sanctions are squeezing Iran).

Pretty crazy description of things going on in the Middle East, if you were interested.

The main thing I have to take from this is never elect simplicity. The Bush admin was the problem. Its campaign was distinguished by its simplistic description of reality. Then when it got into power and had to deal with shit in the fan, the worst (most simplistic) outcomes entailed

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't think it's about Bush, either. There was even a paragraph in there about how Bush including Iran in the axis of evil destroyed a blossoming and valuable relationship with Suleimani. But Sulemani shows time and time again the ability to turn on a dime, and move disparate actors to take advantage of any perceived opening. While the relationship may have been going well w.r.t the Taliban, there is no telling how long it takes for Suleimani to value an offensive maneuver against the US over an alliance maneuver against the Taliban.

Really, this guy is just crazy. He is the reason we got kicked out of Iraq and Iraq is now basically Iran Jr. He is the reason Assad is still standing.

[wufwugy]

I blame that on Bush incompetence. The Shia are the massive underdogs in the Arab world because there are so few of them. Without any western intervention whatsoever, the only Alawite (Shia) stronghold in the Arab region is on the brink of collapse. Iraq became a clusterfuck because the Bush admin did absolutely nothing right. They toppled the government and declared anarchy. Of course Shia influences could then easily flood in from Iran. The Syrian civil war is not ending any time soon, and when it does, Assad won't take his country back. As long as the war is underway, the Iran/Hezbollah relationship suffers greatly.

The tide is not in Iran's favor

[rong]

Not entirely related, but I can't help feeling this kinda shit is inevitable regardless of who wins and who we help. We really have no power whatsoever to influence anything. As that New Yorker article explained about Iraq and Syria, it seems Afghanistan is the same.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24431420

[a500lbgorilla]

Democracy is messy. Great fun to watch though. At least it brings a eclectic group to the conversation.