The News Thread

[rms]

it's ultimately a hasty decision and I don't understand the not waiting for full investigation part, but this idea that we are a 'leader' of the U.N. that doesn't have any intention of enforcing "laws" that say chemical attacks are never justified is bewildering.

Hitchens had this similar point to Saddam Hussein for the Iraq War and theoretically I agree with him, it's just some matter of practicality that confuses it, for me.

 

[Dak]

There are any number of possible explanations for the supposed chemical attack (including the possibility it didn't happen - I swear it seems like no one has ever heard of image and video editing programs and equipment). Regardless of the explanation, there's no direct connection to "taking action" whatsoever. Fuckin Trump, just became another politician.

 

[rms]

it didnt happen if you consider the Turks to lie

but, lets make it interesting. Say Assad or his military leadership (ala Japan in ww2) used chemical weapons. What say you? (being anyone reading outside of arg)

 

[Dak]

Say Assad or his military leadership (ala Japan in ww2) used chemical weapons. What say you?

I'd say "What business is it of ours?"

 

[rms]

but that is dodging the point, since we as a Nation have agreed to be the (or a) 'big brother' globally.

 

[Dak]

"We" didn't, and even if so "we" can also agree not to.

 

[rms]

time to accept the fact you live in a representative democracy

 

[Dak]

time to accept the fact you live in a representative democracy

Sure. Hence the followup response.

 

[rms]

this is a boring exercise, i am sad @ you

 

[Dak]

this is a boring exercise, i am sad @ you

But cruise missiles are exciting!

 

[rms]

they do look exciting. i wonder if that's the only job in that navy that gets some chubbies going except being a jet pilot

just dislike hearing perspectives that the US should withdraw globally while China and Russia still maintain their influence. WW2 was caused by people like you! <3

 

[Dak]

just dislike hearing perspectives that the US should withdraw globally while China and Russia still maintain their influence.

There are more ways to influence the world than blowing up the Middle East and eastern Europe. I call it a lack of imagination/intellect.

 

[rms]

seems naive to assume the US will influence more outside of conflict than CHN/RUS/IRAN as they all support the current regime

 

[Dak]

seems naive to assume the US will influence more outside of conflict than CHN/RUS/IRAN as they all support the current regime

Why does it matter whatsoever to the US what happens in Syria?

1. It's on the other side of the globe - meaning it has many neighbors which have much more salient/proximal interests
2. It's smaller in population than 2 US states
3. It's smaller in size than 17 US states
4. It has relatively few natural resources including a lack of oil
5. It is overwhelmingly Muslim

Let'em sort their own shit out. If Russia wants to own that mess, let them.

Oh yeah, I forgot. It has the only Russian port on the Mediterranean. The US is willing to screw over the 20 some million people living there to try and get in a war with Russia over one fucking port. Fucking genius.

https://twitter.com/Max_A_Suchkov/status/850372070802419713/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-07/russian-warship-steaming-toward-us-destroyers-syria-coast

Edit: The primary thing directly protecting Syria from the US right now are all the Russian supplied SAM systems, including the S200, S300, and even S400:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
https://medium.com/@GetterWetzel/ru...t-does-it-mean-for-us-air-assets-6bd31605cedd

 

[rms]

It's on the other side of the globe - meaning it has many neighbors which have much more salient/proximal interests

regional stability is very important to economic interests in the region as well as domestic stability in Europe and at home. And if you believe in or are at least partially interested in promoting political discourse over sectarian violence, that is obviously a factor as well.

Early 20th to mid 20th century history demonstrate a need for global powers to participate in regional feuds. Obviously meddling has its fault, but it's usually because our vested interests have gone too far. What is a good example of ignoring these conflicts or appeasing these leaders?

2. It's smaller in population than 2 US states
3. It's smaller in size than 17 US states
4. It has relatively few natural resources including a lack of oil
5. It is overwhelmingly Muslim

2-4 seem irrelevant to any kind of valuable discussion but #5 doesn't make sense to me. If anything, muslim allies are more important now than they ever were globally.

Let'em sort their own shit out. If Russia wants to own that mess, let them.

Mess? Russia is going to maintain and help an authoritarian regime for their economic and social stability. It's only a mess for Russia because there is opposition to their influence, namely US, Turks and Saudis. Obviously 2 out of 3 are not perfect or even ideal 'allies' so let's not go down into that rabbit hole to which I think there is no value.

The problem of ISIS is going to force nations in the region to choose sides, and Assad is sadly on the attractive side of that

 

[CiG]

The UK is much closer to Syria, let them deal with it.

Also, I didn't see this answered. If president Bashar al-Assad didn't do this, who did?

 

[Dak]

regional stability is very important to economic interests in the region as well as domestic stability in Europe and at home. And if you believe in or are at least partially interested in promoting political discourse over sectarian violence, that is obviously a factor as well.

Early 20th to mid 20th century history demonstrate a need for global powers to participate in regional feuds. Obviously meddling has its fault, but it's usually because our vested interests have gone too far. What is a good example of ignoring these conflicts or appeasing these leaders?

Who destabilized Syria? It obviously wasn't Russia. We don't have good examples of ignoring conflicts because we don't fucking do it.

2-4 seem irrelevant to any kind of valuable discussion but #5 doesn't make sense to me. If anything, muslim allies are more important now than they ever were globally.

Why aren't they relevant? The country literally has no strategic value unless you count 1 foreign port.

Mess? Russia is going to maintain and help an authoritarian regime for their economic and social stability. It's only a mess for Russia because there is opposition to their influence, namely US, Turks and Saudis. Obviously 2 out of 3 are not perfect or even ideal 'allies' so let's not go down into that rabbit hole to which I think there is no value.

The problem of ISIS is going to force nations in the region to choose sides, and Assad is sadly on the attractive side of that

ISIS is significantly a creation of western foreign policy. Somehow more of the same is going to eliminate it. If you want western foreign policy to eliminate the possibility of more radicalized Muslims, it's going to require the elimination of all Muslims. Or we could leave them alone.

I don't know why we have history classes. No one ever learns from them.

 

[rms]

Who destabilized Syria? It obviously wasn't Russia.

I need more information on Syria, but from my understanding Basshar and his father have held onto power for decades. Arab Spring, I guess, is considered the day0 start, and that was in response to at the very least his regime. Russia has supported them from the beginning as far as I can tell and who knows how long before then. If Russia backed that regime with funding and military superiority, they definitely contributed to the destabilization.

We don't have good examples of ignoring conflicts because we don't fucking do it.

Dak, the 1930s man. Appeasement/Ignoring is historically considered one of the largest factors that contributed to WW2. I think it's 2nd behind global economic depression.

But it wasn't limited to "we," for clarity's sake.

Why aren't they relevant?

I guess you're saying the small populations means their impact is miniscule to themselves. I disagree and that seems clear today? literal size is obviously irrelevant? Israel/Palestine for instance..

To #4, the fact that there is no resources describes a possible situation in the country. A lack of economic possibility is probably the driving factor of radicalism within the populace. With this increased chance, the increased frustration of the working populace will eventually force their political system to respond (and they did), as well as neighboring countries who try and maintain safety and sovereignty.

The country literally has no strategic value unless you count 1 foreign port.

This appears to be a limited definition of strategic value for someone interested in military theory/strategy

ISIS is significantly a creation of western foreign policy.

yes, but this is so complex and sadly provides the doubled edged sword of what should be good moral intervention into a terrible thing.

If you want western foreign policy to eliminate the possibility of more radicalized Muslims, it's going to require the elimination of all Muslims.

i would say the larger problem is that the "up and comers" in the region are so garbage that makes intervention so difficult. not necessarily that intervention is a problem

Or we could leave them alone.

if everyone else did, sure I think that's a legitimate answer. but removing us just tilts the tables in a different way.

I don't know why we have history classes. No one ever learns from them.

bad take

 

[Dak]

I need more information on Syria, but from my understanding Basshar and his father have held onto power for decades. Arab Spring, I guess, is considered the day0 start, and that was in response to at the very least his regime. Russia has supported them from the beginning as far as I can tell and who knows how long before then. If Russia backed that regime with funding and military superiority, they definitely contributed to the destabilization.

Dak, the 1930s man. Appeasement/Ignoring is historically considered one of the largest factors that contributed to WW2. I think it's 2nd behind global economic depression.

But it wasn't limited to "we," for clarity's sake.

WW2 was caused by WW1. Intervention requires forever intervention. The US fomented the Arab Spring. Supporting a relatively modern regime in the face of Islamic Radicalization is only supporting "destabilization" if radical takeover is considered stability.

I guess you're saying the small populations means their impact is miniscule to themselves. I disagree and that seems clear today? literal size is obviously irrelevant? Israel/Palestine for instance..

To #4, the fact that there is no resources describes a possible situation in the country. A lack of economic possibility is probably the driving factor of radicalism within the populace. With this increased chance, the increased frustration of the working populace will eventually force their political system to respond (and they did), as well as neighboring countries who try and maintain safety and sovereignty.

Japan lacks natural resources, but they submit to the western order.

This appears to be a limited definition of strategic value for someone interested in military theory/strategy

yes, but this is so complex and sadly provides the doubled edged sword of what should be good moral intervention into a terrible thing.

i would say the larger problem is that the "up and comers" in the region are so garbage that makes intervention so difficult. not necessarily that intervention is a problem

All you've done here is privilege "morality" over "morality". The US has more to lose than Russia has to gain over that one port. Never mind the "morality" on killing Syrians over one port.

if everyone else did, sure I think that's a legitimate answer. but removing us just tilts the tables in a different way.
bad take

We could just preemptively nuke the rest of the world and "tilt the table" our way entirely. And control all the history books about it. Win-win amirite.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm probably ok with the attack on Syria.

Again, I subscribe to the elitist-globalist view that America's role is to be the world's police, that if we aren't then China will take our place, and that non-interventionist libertarian types belong at the fringe of our politics.