None of it is about persuading people. It's all about reenforcing the views of the listener/viewer, for better or worse.
Syria, isolationism, and world police?
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
Unfortunately.
In other news, many left and European sources were saying that this might be an attack launched by the rebels to draw in the US (as has been stated in this thread). Now Rasmussen (secretary-general of NATO) has come out and said he's seen definite and absolute proof it was the regime.
This may mean very little to the Americans around here (since who cares about some Danish guy?), but it's a bit more problematic for European sources and especially many on the center-left. Rasmussen's about 55x more trustworthy and believable than any American politician who treats Syria purely as something domestic. Heck, even I'm tempted to believe him! Which does somehow raise the question of "why not show those clear proofs to the Russians and Chinese?", but I suppose you don't want to reveal sources. ANyway, we'll see what happens....
Because they don't care. They don't have to pretend to care about the welfare of the rest of the world... all they have to do is extend their power base into the region to secure their own oil supplies/ability to project power and then they will look strong to their people domestically. This means supporting the regime with all the fire power, not the rag-tag group of rebels that will basically destroy the country's ability to function for several years. Unfortunately for Russia and China, any involvement by the US complicates things. Now the Russians have to worry about losing their only port in the region (and they will, if the rebels win, because the US will make it happen) and the Chinese have to worry about how this will effect their oil prices.
Basically, things are kinda fucked for Russia and China. Their only hope now is that Syria becomes such quagmire that nothing is accomplished or that they can win over the fascist rebel groups from outside the country. If they don't, they will lose everything.
GasBandit
Staff member
We did show our proof to the Russians. They said they found it "unconvincing." That's exactly how that would go if our evidence was ironclad or completely, transparently phoney. The Russians don't care about what's true, they only care about what they think suits their own personal interests - and they've been backing Bashar al-Assad since day one. And now that it looks like we're going to be supporting the rebels, they've already said they'll up their material support to Assad to counter it.
Hooray proxy wars!
Hooray proxy wars!
And what a pointless proxy war it is. Russia doesn't have the resources to wage proxy wars like it did before the Fall, especially compared to our capability right now. Even with China helping it's doubtful they have the kind of tools they'd need to give the army to make a difference.
This is such a low tech war, it does not matter. Russia will make tons of money on this, because we normally give away Russian weapons to our allies anyway.
Hopefully this time we will buy our AK's from Poland or the Czech Republic.
Which is why they're working so hard to stop others from taking action, which is why the US and France are applying so much pressure. Going to congress is merely another step in a game to see how hard they're going to push us. But we haven't committed to the idea of putting troops on the ground, and with all their personnel and hardware in residential areas a real bombing campaign is politically untenable. The bombing they can do, other than as a show of force, won't accomplish anything.
The next step would be a no-fly zone, and while that might actually have some effect it would be expensive to maintain.
What they really need is multi-lateral peacekeeping from the UN, but that's never going to pass, not with Russia and China's vetos, but even if those didn't exist the UK has already backed down, and everyone except the US and France are on the fence.
GasBandit
Staff member
The whole thing is political posturing, as far as the US goes. All this very public "We're gonna! We're SO gonna!" for days and now weeks is giving Assad time to move his sensitive targets into population zones and get the human shields up and in position. If our government was really serious about fixing the Assad problem, it would have quickly and quietly done so already. But all the cable news kabuki shows how really it's just a great big flashing-and-spinning-lights distraction from domestic issues and scandals.
And it's working great.
GasBandit
Staff member
What's he doin'?
Which is horrible, horrible, horrible as dozens if not hundreds die each day.
I agree with any and all Rand Paul hatred, but this issue is, for me, the proverbial broken clock right twice a day situation.
Necronic
Staff member
Really he's just doing what we should expect, he's on isolationist.
Btw, watch fox news of you have a chance. They have no idea what to do right now since they are caught between Boehner and the tea party.
They wen from being pro-strike (while criticizing the delays Obama has made) to being isolationist (implying a strike would provoke retaliation from Russia) in one 5 minute bit.
They have no idea how to straddle this fence. Eat a huge bag of dicks Fox. This is what you get.
Btw, watch fox news of you have a chance. They have no idea what to do right now since they are caught between Boehner and the tea party.
They wen from being pro-strike (while criticizing the delays Obama has made) to being isolationist (implying a strike would provoke retaliation from Russia) in one 5 minute bit.
They have no idea how to straddle this fence. Eat a huge bag of dicks Fox. This is what you get.
I doubt it. They'll keep the command centers and such just where they were, they'll just house as many women and children in the same buildings as possible, so that anybody attacking it looks as monstrous as possible.
It's the same as this old image, just different nationalities:
What show? The same personality made that statement within the same 5 minute segment?
Necronic
Staff member
Ok so I thought I would check on the other republican pundits. They seem just as confused as to how to attack Obama without attacking Boehner.
Hannity is criticizing him for only now appreciating the need for congressional approval. I guess he dissapeared of Reagan's actions in Grenada as well.
Rush Limbaugh is implying the whole thing is a false flag operation by the white house (it turns out WE gassed Syria)
Glenn beck is....well Glenn beck is openly siding with the tea party. No surprise.
Hannity is criticizing him for only now appreciating the need for congressional approval. I guess he dissapeared of Reagan's actions in Grenada as well.
Rush Limbaugh is implying the whole thing is a false flag operation by the white house (it turns out WE gassed Syria)
Glenn beck is....well Glenn beck is openly siding with the tea party. No surprise.
Dave
Staff member
I'm totally against this, for a number of reasons.
(No, it has nothing to do with my son.)
- Neither Assad nor the rebel groups are good guys. But if I had to choose, Assad is the better choice. The rebels are peppered with Al-Qaeda and other ultra-conservative religious groups that would clamp down and clamp down hard on the populace. These are NOT good guys.
- I don't trust the government's "proof" any longer. I've heard this song and dance before. Obama seems so focused on attacking that it seems to me it is proof for the sake of attacking instead of proof for the sake of the truth.
- Without the backing of the UN - even if Russia is the only abstainer from the security council - it will be nothing more than a unilateral attack. I'd say that would be an illegal action.
(No, it has nothing to do with my son.)
The senate has a draft proposal to be put to a vote soon which has a maximum window of 60 days for any action, and disallows ground forces.
Putin is making veiled threats about supporting Iran more (with missile defense systems in particular) if action is taken in Syria, but has not said anything else about what Russia might do if the US does take action.
France will not vote until they know the outcome of the US Congressional vote.
Everyone looks to the US, waiting and watching. Which is ridiculous because the US is corrupt inside and out. How many politicians are happy the NSA stuff is being swept under the rug? Can we compare syria, who has killed 0.3% of their population with chemical weapons to the US who spies on 100% of its citizens? Is loss of life worse than loss of liberty? How many corporations in the US stand to profit from even a limited engagement in the middle east? How many have their pocketbooks open to congressional representatives? How are we idly standing by as Fukishima poisons the world's oceans with highly radioactive waste? How are we contemplating another military engagement when we refuse to give returning soldiers adequate mental health care?
The stark reality is that even if we decapitate the Assad regime, the power vacuum would likely result in Russia gaining more power over Syria, and our enemies gaining a stronger foothold in the region as it becomes more destabilized - particularly if we aren't committed to filling that vacuum ourselves.
Assad may be the aggressor, but he's clearly not Russia's puppet - he's only using them insofar as they align with his goals - and the question we have to ask ourselves is "What is our goal"
Is it truly "How do we get the murder to stop" or is it "how do we bring democracy and freedom to a people fighting for it."
If it's the first, Supporting Assad is likely the quickest way forward - Russia and China can't easily veto US support of the side they're supporting.
If it's the second, it's impossible. Witness Iraq and Afghanistan. We take our troops out and democracy leaves with us. Now we're largely turning a blind eye as they both devolve back into the warlord/feudal system they had prior where might makes right.
Are we really just trying to stop a single murder in the park, or are we trying to make the park a safe place to jog?
Aside from all that, very few of the groups fighting Assad are actually interested in real freedom and democracy. They are giving us lip service on that front to attract us to their "cause" but few of them, if put in power, would actually follow through, or be able to follow through.
Putin is making veiled threats about supporting Iran more (with missile defense systems in particular) if action is taken in Syria, but has not said anything else about what Russia might do if the US does take action.
France will not vote until they know the outcome of the US Congressional vote.
Everyone looks to the US, waiting and watching. Which is ridiculous because the US is corrupt inside and out. How many politicians are happy the NSA stuff is being swept under the rug? Can we compare syria, who has killed 0.3% of their population with chemical weapons to the US who spies on 100% of its citizens? Is loss of life worse than loss of liberty? How many corporations in the US stand to profit from even a limited engagement in the middle east? How many have their pocketbooks open to congressional representatives? How are we idly standing by as Fukishima poisons the world's oceans with highly radioactive waste? How are we contemplating another military engagement when we refuse to give returning soldiers adequate mental health care?
The stark reality is that even if we decapitate the Assad regime, the power vacuum would likely result in Russia gaining more power over Syria, and our enemies gaining a stronger foothold in the region as it becomes more destabilized - particularly if we aren't committed to filling that vacuum ourselves.
Assad may be the aggressor, but he's clearly not Russia's puppet - he's only using them insofar as they align with his goals - and the question we have to ask ourselves is "What is our goal"
Is it truly "How do we get the murder to stop" or is it "how do we bring democracy and freedom to a people fighting for it."
If it's the first, Supporting Assad is likely the quickest way forward - Russia and China can't easily veto US support of the side they're supporting.
If it's the second, it's impossible. Witness Iraq and Afghanistan. We take our troops out and democracy leaves with us. Now we're largely turning a blind eye as they both devolve back into the warlord/feudal system they had prior where might makes right.
Are we really just trying to stop a single murder in the park, or are we trying to make the park a safe place to jog?
Aside from all that, very few of the groups fighting Assad are actually interested in real freedom and democracy. They are giving us lip service on that front to attract us to their "cause" but few of them, if put in power, would actually follow through, or be able to follow through.
Fuck the (world) police
Dave
Staff member
Succinct and insightful.
GasBandit
Staff member
I've seen polls that say the American populace opposes military action in Syria by 2 to 1. Surprise, surprise, our political overlords are disconnected from the electorate they purport to serve, and are going full bore autistic autopilot on a crash course with tragedy and misfortune. There is no US interest served by helping either side in the Syrian civil war, and "stopping the killing" is so trite as to be cynical - as noted previously, there's so much killing going on by tyrants/zealots all over the world that we don't even bother mentioning, that the excuse rings hollow.
Dave
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
And let's just throw this out there for John Kerry's assurances there will be "no boots on the ground."
“There is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration. No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control.”
-John Kerry in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971
“There is absolutely no difference between ground troops and a helicopter, and yet people have accepted a differentiation fed them by the administration. No ground troops are in Laos, so it is all right to kill Laotians by remote control.”
-John Kerry in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971
There there, Dave. We'll get through this. I'm sure you'll disagree with him on something in the next 5 minutes. Till then, stay strong.
Necronic
Staff member
If people didn't want this they should have spoken up when the chemical weapons treaties were signed. We should have all stood up and said "you know what, I don't like chemical weapons, but I'm not willing to do anything about so fuck it".
Fuck that. I am so god damned tired of everyone saying they are for something and doing nothing about it.
Words. Words. Fucking limp useless words. Words only mean something when backed up by action. This is something the current Internet generation of anonymous tough guys don't get.
Here's the deal:
-Chemical weapons are fucking evil
-our intel is as good as its going to get
-it's time to man the fuck up and do what we said we would do.
Also what in the actual fuck does the NSA have to do with any of this? Did you seriously just act like NSA wiretapping is worse than gassing children?
What is wrong with you people?[DOUBLEPOST=1378315386,1378315208][/DOUBLEPOST]And the idea that there is no US interest served by this is so far from true it's laughable. Here's what it means:
When we say stop or we'll shoot, you damn well better stop.
Do any of you even get that that's how world peace works? MAD has kept us safe only because the world knows that there are people out there that will follow through on their promises.[DOUBLEPOST=1378315959][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, while I would rather the US lead through dialogue and diplomacy, when it comes to dictators I am perfectly fine with us leading through fear.
How many people here cried for Gadaffi?
Dave
Staff member
Killing a bunch of innocent civilians - which is exactly what will happen if we bomb - based on intelligence that I don't trust seems to me to be folly.
We're going to bomb Mussolini to put Hitler in power. It's not our fucking job to step in here. It's not a US treaty against chemical weapons, it's a WORLD treaty. Why the fuck are we the ones who have to go in and do this? This has GOT to come from the UN or it means nothing. MAD is dumb. It's the international equivalent of "Let's give everyone a gun! That'll stop all crimes!" It just doesn't work.[DOUBLEPOST=1378316076,1378316027][/DOUBLEPOST]Deposing Gadaffi was a mistake as well.
We're going to bomb Mussolini to put Hitler in power. It's not our fucking job to step in here. It's not a US treaty against chemical weapons, it's a WORLD treaty. Why the fuck are we the ones who have to go in and do this? This has GOT to come from the UN or it means nothing. MAD is dumb. It's the international equivalent of "Let's give everyone a gun! That'll stop all crimes!" It just doesn't work.[DOUBLEPOST=1378316076,1378316027][/DOUBLEPOST]Deposing Gadaffi was a mistake as well.
[EDIT] Dammit @Dave, now I have to quote the post.
You're only giving a shit about this because you're being told that you need to give a shit about this right now or something terrible will happen immediately! Think of the CHILDREN! If you don't think that people in Washington are driving up the attention on this in order to distract people from the very real violations of the fourth amendment you are a fool. Your idea of how getting involved in Syria benefits US interests is incredibly abstract, about 5 steps removed, and frankly laughable. What makes your post so particularly hilarious though is that every argument given can be applied to the Iraq situation in 2004. If I didn't know any better I'd say you were trying to make a parody post.
After Iraq, there isn't a whole lot of trust in what the government says is "proof". If they want us to get behind this, they need to make their case to us. They lost our trust, and need to earn it back. Show us the proof.
Also, what are we going to do? Most likely launch some missiles and that will be it. It will accomplish nothing except to kill more people, at the best we'll assist another radical leader in getting into power. In 10 years when they've had a chance to recover, we'll be right back here. Trying to out an evil dictator that's killing people. We've created a cycle of war in the area.
Look at the area in the past 30 years, and tell me anything we've done has helped. We're going to go half assed in this so that we can feel better about ourselves and pat ourselves on the back. It's bullshit and we're going to hurt the people of that country more than help when we leave them with an even more radical leader and say "Welp, we're done here!"
Necronic
Staff member
The Iraq situation had very questionable intelligence. If your concern is the intelligence then I totally understand why you wouldn't want to strike. I don't have that concern anymore, and we can discuss the merits of the intelligence if you want.
And unlike the rest of you guys, I am capable of walking and chewing gum and the same time. Do you think our role in the world immediately shuts down in the case of a scandal? Oh god the president shot his load on some intern. Guess we don't have to worry about Serbia now. Here's the reality: the NSA shit matters. The Syria situation matters. They aren't mutually exclusive.
And yeah, Washington probably IS driving up this issue as a distraction. You know what? Thank fucking god. This matters. This matters so much. One of the most evil things we have done as a country is what we did to the Khurds.
Chemical warfare has always been and should always be a zero tolerance issue. We've dropped the ball in the past. That's no excuse to drop the ball now. Previous failures are no justification for their repitition.
And unlike the rest of you guys, I am capable of walking and chewing gum and the same time. Do you think our role in the world immediately shuts down in the case of a scandal? Oh god the president shot his load on some intern. Guess we don't have to worry about Serbia now. Here's the reality: the NSA shit matters. The Syria situation matters. They aren't mutually exclusive.
And yeah, Washington probably IS driving up this issue as a distraction. You know what? Thank fucking god. This matters. This matters so much. One of the most evil things we have done as a country is what we did to the Khurds.
Chemical warfare has always been and should always be a zero tolerance issue. We've dropped the ball in the past. That's no excuse to drop the ball now. Previous failures are no justification for their repitition.
Dave
Staff member
What the fuck are you talking about? We couldn't have given a shit that tens of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by conventional weapons. Children blown apart by shelling neighborhoods with mortars. Whole villages taken out & slaughtered, the men decapitated and the women raped to death. And yet we did nothing. And not just in Syria. I'm talking Rwanda, North Korea, India, Kyrgyzstan, ... The list goes on and on. But suddenly someone uses gas - who is undetermined because they showed us physical evidence of the Iraqi danger as well - and we get all high & mighty and want to go in guns a-blazing? This is NOT the job of the US as an independent entity! This has GOT to be a UN mandate or it's nothing more than imperialistic posturing.
You know my political viewpoints. I'm more of a liberal than a conservative. I voted for Obama - twice! But this is seeming so much like a parallel of shit we already went through. We have hindsight for that conflict, and those who refuse to learn from history....
You know my political viewpoints. I'm more of a liberal than a conservative. I voted for Obama - twice! But this is seeming so much like a parallel of shit we already went through. We have hindsight for that conflict, and those who refuse to learn from history....
And what happens when a new radical leader takes power and STILL has the chemical weapons Assad has? Us bombing them isn't going to do shit. If we want to create real change we have to spend billions and put troops on the ground for years. Even then, you can see how well it worked for Iraq.
No, I'm not OK with using our military resources to simply put another dictator in power. If we want to stop this, then lets stop it. Launching missiles and then walking away is far worse than letting them figure this out themselves.
No, I'm not OK with using our military resources to simply put another dictator in power. If we want to stop this, then lets stop it. Launching missiles and then walking away is far worse than letting them figure this out themselves.