Someone explain to me why we're attacking Syria on the basis of the government using chemical weapons when the rebels openly admitted they were the ones who mishandled them?
09-05-2013 04:14 PM
#1
| |
What the fuck re: SyriaSomeone explain to me why we're attacking Syria on the basis of the government using chemical weapons when the rebels openly admitted they were the ones who mishandled them? | |
| |
09-05-2013 04:30 PM
#2
| |
Because your fellow countrymen are too god damned lazy to argue against its own government. | |
09-05-2013 04:35 PM
#3
| |
| |
09-05-2013 04:39 PM
#4
| |
|
Spoon is either trolling or dumb |
09-05-2013 04:58 PM
#5
| |
Credible sources for the rebels claiming responsibility for the attacks? | |
09-05-2013 05:06 PM
#6
| |
|
Regardless of the lack of any evidence showing it was done by something other than the Syrian government, if it was, shit would have hit the fan already. Russia would be going bananas over Assad being framed. Instead, they've been slowly backing away for a while. They too don't support the use of chemical weapons, even though they support Assad |
09-05-2013 05:21 PM
#7
| |
| |
09-05-2013 06:03 PM
#8
| |
|
I'm going to lose a lot of faith in US citizenry if public opinion about this stays the same. This is one of the most clear cut issues we've had in a long time, and every single argument against it is just a giant straw man. No there won't be any ground troops, no your conventional weapons analogies do not apply, no your Iraq analogies don't apply, no your misunderstanding of what the President said does not apply. God |
09-05-2013 06:33 PM
#9
| |
Yeah, you have a point Wuf, but it seems your country just doesn't have the appetite for another middle east excursion, no matter how limited. You're absolutely right about the arguments against it being a "straw man". Though I imagine some legitimate concerns exist with respect to the rebels and who is backing them / on their side etc. You don't want to inadvertently help another one of your enemies. | |
| |
09-05-2013 06:40 PM
#10
| |
| |
09-05-2013 06:41 PM
#11
| |
This is why you want professionals making decisions, us amateurs just aren't exposed to the right info. | |
| |
09-05-2013 06:46 PM
#12
| |
|
That's a consideration but still not essential. This is about Assad using chemical warfare, and that's sorta the end of it. Due to his actions, he's basically the worst terrorist alive, heading up a terrorist state. If you don't want to use that terminology, it's fine, but my point is that it's about the chemical warfare, and that reality makes Assad more dangerous than any of the rebels. So worrying about the rebels shouldn't be a part of the calculus on whether or not to take out Assad, but in the calculus of how to get it done, the aftermath, etc. Regardless, the best way to establish the moderate rebels is through this process. It's not like the military isn't trying to identify and aid the moderates. |
09-05-2013 06:49 PM
#13
| |
|
The problem with democracy is that the people in power are smarter and more well-informed than the voters. The problem with every other form of government is that people in power take more power when they can and thus create aristocracies for themselves and swaths of poor for everybody else |
09-05-2013 06:52 PM
#14
| |
I haven't been following the political situation in Syria, why does Russia support Assad? | |
| |
09-05-2013 06:52 PM
#15
| |
I don't think this is a bad thing. I also think my example says that you should be highly skeptical of spoon's opening claims. It's easy to fabricate testimonials. Hopefully, a wide variety of people in charge, exposed to the appropriate info, will be better able to vet these sorts of things than you or I. | |
| |
09-05-2013 06:55 PM
#16
| |
|
What about this: the writing is on the wall; regardless of outside intervention, Assad will eventually lose. He doesn't have control of the country or the people. So what happens when the rebels win, all the bad factions of them still just as bad, and they get their hands on the chemical weapons? What happens when al Nursa has poison gas and knows that nobody will do anything about them using it? |
09-05-2013 06:56 PM
#17
| |
Honestly, I think it's about everyone trying to show they're still a superpower. | |
| |
09-05-2013 06:58 PM
#18
| |
| |
09-05-2013 07:06 PM
#19
| |
|
Lots of money in arms sales to Assad, ideological agreement about dictatorships and how they improve stability and stuff, a partner in the Arab region, a buffer that helps keep the West from pressuring Iran (another significant ally of theirs), probably some oil contracts (but not much). An additional reason, that would be ficken huge if it was true, is that Syria is Russia's access to the Mediterranean. For the entire last century, obtaining Mediterranean access has been one of Russia's primary motives in foreign policy. However, I don't know if it's true that they need Syria for that. I can't find info on it and a map makes it look like it's not true |
09-05-2013 07:11 PM
#20
| |
|
God it would be so bad if it came to that. The fallout of US on the national stage would probably be worse than what the Iraq War did. People forget that US has guaranteed security for some Arab oil-producing regimes since WW2, and those regimes now rely on it. US not handling this situation would be like your friends abandoning you in a brawl after they said "we got your back, yo" a bunch of times |
09-05-2013 08:00 PM
#21
| |
| |
09-05-2013 08:18 PM
#22
| |
|
Not at all. The makeup of the region to this point is largely dependent on US involvement. Evacuation would destabilize the hell out of it. The lines were drawn by the West out of the fallen Ottoman empire with no regard for regional sensibilities. Israel was created by the West with no regard for any Arabs. It would be nothing but a clusterfuck to leave them and pretend like history didn't happen. Shit would hit the fan if Israel didn't have the backing of the US and started bombing Syria. Hell, the Gulf War would have been a disaster too if it was up to regional actors exclusively to respond to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait |
09-05-2013 08:57 PM
#23
| |
|
Furthermore, I'd make the argument that without hegemony of a superpower during the nuclear age, the world will end. Extract US presence globally without quickly (miraculously) replacing it with another superpower, and you no longer have enforcement of non-proliferation. Instead, what you have is an arms race, but not between US and Russia. No, this time it goes to almost every single state on the planet, starting with Iran in response to Israel, Saudi Arabia in response to Iran, Egypt in response to no more treaty with Israel, Japan and South Korea in response to North Korea and China. Then it just pushes out from there. It's a relatively unstable world that nobody has a handle on and would be far worse than the Cold War. Considering the Cold War came inches away from turning hot, lack of US hegemony is what doomsday looks like |
09-05-2013 09:04 PM
#24
| |
I know a chick from Syria. Huge tits. | |
09-05-2013 09:33 PM
#25
| |
09-05-2013 10:36 PM
#26
| |
| |
09-05-2013 11:01 PM
#27
| |
http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_05/...y-system-4243/ | |
Last edited by oskar; 09-05-2013 at 11:03 PM.
| |
09-05-2013 11:06 PM
#28
| |
|
but it quotes reddit!!! |
09-05-2013 11:17 PM
#29
| |
How do its ads for free energy and mass graves go through my adblock? | |
| |
09-05-2013 11:20 PM
#30
| |
|
probably because adblock purposely supports non-invasive ads |
09-06-2013 12:00 AM
#31
| |
Ok, spoon is officially trolling. The VoR article is claiming that since chemicals used in synthesizing sarin also have other much less nefarious uses, that the U.S. is making all this up. It's like spoon isn't even trying anymore. | |
09-06-2013 01:41 AM
#32
| |
|
Someone asked me the other day if someone was trying to overthrow our U.S. government on U.S. soil, would it be ok to use chemical weapons to maintain the law and order. |
| |
09-06-2013 02:48 AM
#33
| |
seems a bit overkill for just one dude | |
09-06-2013 03:02 AM
#34
| |
|
you magnificent bastard |
09-06-2013 03:03 AM
#35
| |
| |
09-06-2013 05:36 AM
#36
| |
There's a lot to sift through here. I don't know who to believe yet. | |
| |
09-06-2013 07:24 AM
#37
| |
The outcome will decide who was right. History is (re)written by the winners! | |
| |
09-06-2013 11:47 AM
#38
| |
That's a good sound bite, but if you think about the last 100 years or so, when did that ever apply? Or when do you suspect it. You could make an exception to south korea I guess, but then is SK really winning anything? | |
Last edited by oskar; 09-06-2013 at 11:52 AM.
| |
09-06-2013 12:34 PM
#39
| |
Well, since WWII there haven't really been any clear major military victories. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for both Russia and ourselves), etc.. they were, and mostly still are, all clusterfucks. | |
Last edited by boost; 09-06-2013 at 12:37 PM. | |
09-06-2013 12:52 PM
#40
| |
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE HOLOCAUST WASN'T REAL?! | |
| |
09-06-2013 02:16 PM
#41
| |
So I can't find any other sources other than the Telegraph that says this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rns-Putin.html | |
09-06-2013 02:38 PM
#42
| |
| |
| |
09-06-2013 02:40 PM
#43
| |
|
Damn Barry really wants UK support on this: |
09-06-2013 03:48 PM
#44
| |
|
Ah it's a Russian naval base in Syria. That makes sense since they have access to the Mediterranean, but other closest base is in the Black Sea and their ships have to go through Bosporus and the Dardanelles to get to the Mediterranean |
09-06-2013 04:00 PM
#45
| |
I thought the UK was already on board? At least I saw some articles that they came with more proof Assad had used chemical weapons. | |
| |
09-06-2013 04:02 PM
#46
| |
|
I think the central administration is, but it was a few days ago that parliament voted against it |
09-06-2013 04:58 PM
#47
| |
|
great article on the motivations for the related powers |
09-06-2013 05:25 PM
#48
| |
| |
09-06-2013 06:07 PM
#49
| |
Hey, spoon. Look at how the central banks planned the 2008 financial crisis. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry...-end-game-memo | |
| |
09-06-2013 06:19 PM
#50
| |
Alright, time to internet sleuth! | |
| |
09-06-2013 08:44 PM
#51
| |
Great article indeed! Two remarks | |
| |
09-06-2013 08:58 PM
#52
| |
|
You're right about al Qaeda. It's no longer an organization, is now more like an idea, and is relevant in those buzzwordy ways. |
09-06-2013 09:50 PM
#53
| |
My understanding is that it is many things now. In sub-Saharan Africa, some militants have taken on the name because it inspires fear-- it's a legitimate brand name for people to fear. And then in parts of the sub-continent, there are still pockets of intact Al Qaeda, although it is much more dispersed. Then there are insurgents in some places and rebels in others who, unlike the sub-Saharan's I mentioned, actually buy into the creed, and act on it, yet have no true ties to the hierarchy. | |
09-06-2013 11:24 PM
#54
| |
You're welcome! | |
| |
09-07-2013 12:09 AM
#55
| |
|
How about we go to war if we can pay cash for it. This is just another debt for our grandchildren to pay. If we did not produce the chemical weapons in the first place that we sold to them, we would not be taking their toy away like a parent... |
Last edited by eberetta1; 09-07-2013 at 12:13 AM.
| |
09-07-2013 12:56 AM
#56
| |
They have the chemical weapons and are using them-- from who, how, why, and when they got them is pretty much irrelevant in regards to deciding whether or not to take action. And from what I gather, the shelling/airstrikes are already paid for. We have the equipment, and the manpower is already on payroll. Any possible extras are covered in the pentagons "break glass in case of war" fund. We wouldn't be invading, we'd be shelling from our warships, carrying out airstrikes, and likely training vetted rebels. There is no nation building. | |
09-07-2013 12:58 AM
#57
| |
|
Nope. Where do people get this stuff? Oh yeah, out of asses |
09-07-2013 01:16 AM
#58
| |
|
Reading over this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_a...ss_destruction |
09-07-2013 02:23 AM
#59
| |
I agree a reasonable line has been crossed-- a line everyone who matters has agreed should not ever be crossed again. My only issue is, what about the other lines. Why does NK get to imprison whole families for life and three future generations for whatever nonsensical reason they give? I understand that for the sake of being able to actually take action and build coalitions, you have to have cut and dry lines which sometimes seem strangely placed and arbitrary, but wtf? Is what Assad doing really worse than what has been happening in NK for decades and decades? | |
09-07-2013 02:37 AM
#60
| |
|
Because North Korea has the world's largest artillery force and most of them are aimed at Seoul. There is no level of military ops that we could take that would save the millions of South Korean lives that would be taken seconds after the order to attack is given. Because of the threat on Seoul, NK has reached the point where military action against them doesn't work. It can only change from the inside out now, and any furtherance of its WMD capabilities would make matters far worse. The point is that we want to stop states before they become like NK. |
09-07-2013 03:18 AM
#61
| |
Ah, ok, very well put. | |
09-07-2013 06:09 AM
#62
| |
Honestly I think we could solve most of the world's problems by carpet bombing these backward ass countries with information. If our armies were forcing the Syrian and PRK regime soldiers to watch youtube videos of Sagan and Feynman, these regimes would dissolve pretty quickly. | |
09-07-2013 07:05 AM
#63
| |
| |
09-07-2013 07:12 AM
#64
| |
This carpet bombing with information is already happening. It's through the internet. It just takes time. I see it in the same way as science often progresses: "one funeral at a time". When older people with outdated ideas die, the younger better informed generation remains. They should be on the right course over there but it will take time. | |
| |
09-07-2013 07:26 AM
#65
| |
09-07-2013 08:05 AM
#66
| |
I was watching a BBC documentary about Saudi Arabia and it also touched on how Saudi women, thanks to the internet, are informing themselves and even one woman on the film said she aspires to become one of the first women to enter politics. The film made it clear though how incredibly long the way appears to be until she would ever come close to realizing her goal. The current governor (a prince, given that it's a theocratic monarchy) of the Ha'il province featured in the film and he kept emphasising that forcing the population to embrace western ideals like democracy would never work, because the (ignorant) masses don't want change, and pointed to Iran as a example of a failed attempt of westernizing a nation. | |
Last edited by eugmac; 09-07-2013 at 08:13 AM. | |
09-07-2013 03:22 PM
#67
| |
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ria-96372.html | |
| |
09-07-2013 07:09 PM
#68
| |
|
The developing world is moving faster than people think, and far faster than ever in history. I'm not afraid of a cult of anti-intellectualism in the rest of the world, I'm afraid of it in the modern world, namely America. Primitivism is a thing everywhere, but in the US it takes the form of outright rejection of answers. Creationism is a great example. Those in the modern world who believe it tend to do so not because of ignorance but willful ignorance. The developing world tends to have the opposite approach. They cling to their traditions as much as anybody, but they also believe in learning. The Chinese, for example, are the opposite of what Santorum was getting at when he called people who want everybody to go to college "snobs". |
09-08-2013 07:53 AM
#69
| |
Now that I've gotten you fuckers started... | |
| |
09-08-2013 10:54 AM
#70
| |
Last edited by jackvance; 09-08-2013 at 11:02 AM. Reason: forgot a word | |
09-08-2013 01:08 PM
#71
| |
|
That was my initial response. A problem I'm having with it now is that Libya happened since then. |
09-08-2013 09:43 PM
#72
| |
Well my opinion is that none of those people have anything to base their opinion on and that all of those people should shut the fuck up. When they do popular opinion polls they should have people point out Syria on a map as the final question. I'd love to see that statistic. Maybe we can have a graph that shows which opinion holders were how far off. | |
Last edited by oskar; 09-08-2013 at 09:46 PM.
| |
09-08-2013 11:13 PM
#73
| |
If you had news and documentaries flooding TV about what damage chemical weapons do, with shocking visual footage, I'm pretty sure the majority in the US would vote for the attacks. People are pretty fickle that way. | |
| |
09-09-2013 09:54 AM
#74
| |
| |
09-10-2013 04:41 AM
#75
| |
I'm confused. | |
| |