World & Politics


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


The United States should stay out of it. I'd say it's questionable if Assad even conducted these "attacks" or if it's a setup.

settingsOptions
There are 117 Replies

Tag thiid plesse

Edited April 13th by Weid man
Weid man
 

Trumps policy advisers.



Posted April 9th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Trump is a fascist president

Posted April 9th by Weid man
Weid man
 

Destroy Russia.

Posted April 9th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Trump is a fascist president 

I wish.

Posted April 9th by #85
#85

We should have no business in Syria, other than to accept refugees.

Posted April 9th by mariomguy
mariomguy

Blue crystal is from Syria so let her decide what we should do.

Posted April 9th by Weid man
Weid man
 

Trump is a fascist president

id like him better if he was. minus the racist ascept facism has

Edited April 10th by Brandy
Brandy

Good to see GTx0's crack geopolitical team hot on the case of this chemical weapons attack.

Posted April 10th by Agis
Agis
 

Dedicated Advisers to the Trump 2020 administration.

Posted April 10th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

#nuke #kony #2018

Posted April 10th by Xhin
Xhin
 

id like him better if he was. minus the racist ascept facism has

Mussolinis fascism didn't have much if anything to do with race.

Good to see GTx0's crack geopolitical team hot on the case of this chemical weapons attack.

Do you think we should intervene in Syria?

Posted April 10th by #85
#85

I'm honest enough to admit I don't know at this point. We probably should have before Russia intervened and bombed the moderate rebels while ignoring ISIS.

Rojava of Northern Syria is worth protecting, I feel, because the Kurds have fought hard to establish a dominion that seems to have the makings of a moderate and well-run State. But that might only be the first step in Kurdish ambition to carve out a state from Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran. I don't think we have the stomach to see such a geopolitical project like that through.

I think Trump will do more than make a pre-announced attack on an airfield, but won't target Assad directly, and will doubtful deploy more troops.

Posted April 10th by Agis
Agis
 

It's funny how the "alt right neo nazis" are the only ones speaking out against a possible violent war. For all the lipservice the alt-left gives against imperialism, this is what they are advocating here.

Posted April 10th by #85
#85

moderate rebels

Which groups are you talking about?

And what was a Coalition (if not solely US-led) intervention going to achieve before Russian involvement?

Rojava of Northern Syria is worth protecting

Agreed. Rojava is one of the few positives to come of this conflict in that it has been able to consolidate without much prying. But how do you propose to combat Turkish belligerence every single time any Kurd issue comes up?

Posted April 10th by Arch
Arch
 

Primarily the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Free Syrian Army.

But how do you propose to combat Turkish belligerence every single time any Kurd issue comes up?

I think if we continue to have troops in Rojava, and it is given enough security for its economic, political, and cultural development, it will become harder and harder to threaten militarily either by Turkey or Syria.

And thinking more long-term, I think we have to start considering our relations with Turkey are going to become much colder for the forseeable future. Erdogan seems to have more in common with Putin and Assad than any of our true allies in Europe.

Posted April 10th by Agis
Agis
 

Free Syrian Army

Ceased to be a cogent organisation years ago (and wasn't really to begin with) in terms of its early, sole anti-Assad position. It's now effectively a Turkish-backed cypher, and always had a questionable record of alleged war crimes and links to Jihadi groups dating back to 2011-2. It's opposed to Rojava and spends its time assisting Turkish forces clearing Kurdish YPG units. So not really moderate at all.

Syrian Democratic Forces

... who are in de facto opposition to the FSA. A Kurdish-led coalition of disparate tribal Arab groups that definitely wouldn't turn on each other and their paymasters were the Kurds to cease administration of the group. No-one really knows the full composition or long-term intentions of its constituent parties, with the possible exception of YPG/Rojava administration.

Regardless, they formed after Russian involvement, and support for them is repeatedly complicated by Turkey and their bargaining with Russia over Idlib/Afrin. They don't form a viable vector insofar as pre-Russian interventionism was concerned.

I think if we continue to have troops in Rojava, and it is given enough security for its economic, political, and cultural development, it will become harder and harder to threaten militarily either by Turkey or Syria.

How do you propose building forces up in Rojava currently?

Posted April 10th by Arch
Arch
 

To be totally honest I haven't paid attetntion to the news at all in months. Can someone explain what the latest thing in the Syrian clusterfuck (calling it a "war" is disingenuous) is?

Edited April 10th by Xhin
Xhin
 

To be totally honest I haven't paid attetntion to the news at all in months. Can someone explain what the latest thing in the Syrian clusterfuck (calling it a "war" is disingenuous) is?

Trump said about a week ago we are going to completely withdraw from Syria. A "chemical attack" happened and is being blamed on Assad (strategically it makes no sense to provoke the United States when you are defeating your enemies and the US tones foe involvement)

Usual establishment left and right are shilling for war. Several Israeli publications are calling for Syrian intervention which I will post later, etc.


Posted April 10th by #85
#85

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-homeland-security-adviser-resigns-amid-continued-turnover-in-trump-administration/2018/04/10/15db518a-3ccb-11e8-a7d1-e4efec6389f0_story.html
Anti war Bossert is out...looking like the Bolton Warhawks are winning out in this Game of thrones style politics. Trump must stay out!

Posted April 10th by #85
#85

Usual establishment left and right are shilling for war.

I haven't heard from either and-or didn't ask.
Russia should be the target and afterwards the others will be easier to deal with.

Edited April 10th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Free Syrian Army

Ceased to be a cogent organisation years ago (and wasn't really to begin with) in terms of its early, sole anti-Assad position. It's now effectively a Turkish-backed cypher, and always had a questionable record of alleged war crimes and links to Jihadi groups dating back to 2011-2. It's opposed to Rojava and spends its time assisting Turkish forces clearing Kurdish YPG units. So not really moderate at all.

Syrian Democratic Forces

... who are in de facto opposition to the FSA. A Kurdish-led coalition of disparate tribal Arab groups that definitely wouldn't turn on each other and their paymasters were the Kurds to cease administration of the group. No-one really knows the full composition or long-term intentions of its constituent parties, with the possible exception of YPG/Rojava administration.

Let's back up a little bit. I mentioned "moderate rebels" originally to describe the people who had been helpful allies to the US five years ago, were well on their way to winning the struggle against Assad, and precisely because of their moderate tendencies were targeted by Assad and Russia.

The current iterations of these groups that you're describing is what we have to work with now, and the contradictions and drawbacks are why I say I don't really know what to do at this point.

But that being said, are there really no moderate fighters in Syria today? I very much doubt that the current opposition is 100% lacking in fighters who are sympathetic to democracy and America.

It's certainly true, though, that the secular moderate fighters are on the government's side. And they, certainly, can't all like Assad, since the majority are conscripts, but fear Islamic extremists coming into Alawite territory and Damascus proper to take revenge. We should make it very clear that the government and its current loyalist military all have a role to play in the future of Syria -- it's Assad that we want removed, and ideally not require the sacking of Damascus.

How do you propose building forces up in Rojava currently?

I don't have anything specific in mind.

Edited April 10th by Agis
Agis
 

Syria, north korea or Iran. Where we landing boys?

Posted April 10th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Let's back up a little bit. I mentioned "moderate rebels" originally to describe the people who had been helpful allies to the US five years ago, were well on their way to winning the struggle against Assad, and precisely because of their moderate tendencies were targeted by Assad and Russia.

There were no moderates, is my point. The group that comes closest are the Kurds.

"Moderate rebels" was always a euphemism used by policy makers to justify intervention for whatever agenda they touted. This is exactly the same way in which the Afghan Mujahideen were "moderate" if you asked the Reagan administration at the time.

The way governments and media report the situation on the ground in Syria has always assumed a degree of stasis and cohesion when it comes to who's who and what groups constitute. The one thing that is rarely reported is the degree of misinformation and confusion there - people make mistakes, they lie, they exaggerate. When your policy institute's profile of a group is reliant upon third-hand reportage from other actors and limited human intelligence, it's going to be an educated guess at best.

Russia involved themselves as it was in their interests regionally and because the world was just watching yet another Iraq or Libya develop - where a secular state collapses into anarchy, fuelled by Islamic sectarianism and general fundamentalism.

But that being said, are there really no moderate fighters in Syria today? I very much doubt that the current opposition is 100% lacking in fighters who are sympathetic to democracy and America.

The vast majority of actors in the region don't even conceptualise the conflict on these lines. Abstractions such as democracy don't even come into it, or degrees of sympathy towards the US, which, if not treated with blanket suspicion and animosity, is a distant and detached participant beyond the occasional military attache and provision of supplies.

Edited April 11th by Arch
Arch
 

It's certainly true, though, that the secular moderate fighters are on the government's side. And they, certainly, can't all like Assad, since the majority are conscripts, but fear Islamic extremists coming into Alawite territory and Damascus proper to take revenge. We should make it very clear that the government and its current loyalist military all have a role to play in the future of Syria -- it's Assad that we want removed, and ideally not require the sacking of Damascus.

Removing Assad was only possible prior to Russian involvement. He's otherwise won with regards to continuing his government and securing the Levant, and his position is entrenched and enjoys wide-randing support.

Posted April 11th by Arch
Arch
 

There were no moderates, is my point.

Okay, I'm starting to get a better understanding of your overall opinion.

I agree that the label "moderate" arose out of political branding, but to say that they don't exist at all, and thus imply there are only radical Islamist fighters fighting against Assad is not only wrong, but in fact exactly the kind of misinformation Assad and Russia have been playing at since the beginning.

Russia involved themselves as it was in their interests regionally and because the world was just watching yet another Iraq or Libya develop - where a secular state collapses into anarchy, fuelled by Islamic sectarianism and general fundamentalism.

You've really been drinking the Far-Right kool-aid on Russia, haven't you?

Russia involved itself in order to keep an ally, Assad, which would both preserve its own power and influence in the region while simultaneously reducing American influence. The idea that Russia is on some moral crusade against Islamic terrorism is an appeal to the xenophobic far-right, and proved wrong by the fact that they are aiding the Taliban against us and allowed ISIS to thrive.

It's also worth pointing out that this war was not caused by Islamic fundamentalism and sectarianism. It has its roots in decades of authoritarian oppression and brutality by the Syrian state, with war erupting after the imprisoning, torture, and killing of peaceful protestors.

Posted April 11th by Agis
Agis
 

Removing Assad was only possible prior to Russian involvement. He's otherwise won with regards to continuing his government and securing the Levant, and his position is entrenched and enjoys wide-randing support.

Removing Assad by arming rebels and allowing them to remove him was only possible prior to Russian involvement, you mean.

He can still be killed.

Posted April 11th by Agis
Agis
 

As of this writing, Donald J. Trump tweeted:

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and "smart!" You shouldn't be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!

Edited April 11th by Agis
Agis
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna863821
Israel launches missile strike in Syria.

We are about to get dragged into this because of Israel.

Where is all the anti war left?

Posted April 11th by #85
#85

^That was the one from two days ago.

Posted April 11th by Agis
Agis
 

It's funny how the "alt right neo nazis" are the only ones speaking out against a possible violent war.

The alt-right neo nazis are only interested in protecting Russia.
You are not allies of the left and never will be.

Posted April 11th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I agree that the label "moderate" arose out of political branding, but to say that they don't exist at all, and thus imply there are only radical Islamist fighters fighting against Assad is not only wrong, but in fact exactly the kind of misinformation Assad and Russia have been playing at since the beginning.

The examples of groups you cited demonstrated my point. The term "moderate" is largely a meaningless term to denote groups of people who are apparently marginally less fundamentalist (as if degrees of fundamentalism is a useful distinction in the region), based on highly questionable evidence and testimony. This is also ignoring the sheer amount of groups and variant names, which Western intelligence has a difficult time keeping track of. Every group is either co-opted by fundamentalist, tribal, sectarian or international funding (such as Saudi) influences in some fashion. Is every single fighter in Syria a terrorist? No, but the scale of conflicting interests within and without these groups means they are virtually all suspect, and cannot be relied upon to cohesively combat Assad (as they often fight each other), let alone lofty Western notions of what constitutes democracy and stable institutions.

As I said, there's this belief that they are cogent organisations (as opposed to fragile and shifting ones) who operate along clear objectives and guidelines, especially in relation to one another. They don't, it's erroneous. That's why the whole notion of being reliant on "moderate" resistance is such a weak one.

The Kurds' utility as an anti-Assad force in this scenario is blunted seeing as destroying the Assad regime is not an ideological objective for them.

You've really been drinking the Far-Right kool-aid on Russia, haven't you?

Not really. I have no delusions about Russian interests in the region, and their belligerence as an effective gangster state elsewhere around the globe.

As someone who does not engage in Russian apologetics, my main opposition to this originates in our experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and especially the latter two as more or less unbridled failures of foreign policy.

Russia involved itself in order to keep an ally, Assad, which would both preserve its own power and influence in the region while simultaneously reducing American influence. The idea that Russia is on some moral crusade against Islamic terrorism is an appeal to the xenophobic far-right

Where did I say moral crusade?

Shoring up the Assad government was never a secret - the Syrian government had publicly requested Russian support. Insofar as that was the main objective, destroying both anti-government and Islamic fundamentalist groups (who are, for the most part, one and the same) beyond this remit are sub-objectives. Regardless, the best defence against Islamic fundamentalism in the region, for better or worse, are secular state institutions. That means Assad.

And of course, Western interests in the region are hardly benevolent or borne of altruism. Not least as a substantial proportion of it is fuelled by Wahhabi Saudi meddling and Israeli ultra-hostility, both being obsessed with isolating the phantom apocalyptic power of Iran. Agitation against a Syrian state that has traditionally not towed the line is par for the course.

and proved wrong by the fact that they are aiding the Taliban against us and allowed ISIS to thrive.

Care to substanitate this?

It's also worth pointing out that this war was not caused by Islamic fundamentalism and sectarianism. It has its roots in decades of authoritarian oppression and brutality by the Syrian state, with war erupting after the imprisoning, torture, and killing of peaceful protestors.

It might not have started as such, but that is how these conflicts typically end. Act in haste, repent at leisure is the hawk's motto.

Posted April 11th by Arch
Arch
 

Removing Assad by arming rebels and allowing them to remove him was only possible prior to Russian involvement, you mean.

He can still be killed.

If we had armed rebels and saw the ouster of Assad, we'd be looking at another Libya with multiple competing transitional governments claiming legitimacy and criminal gangs, tribal feuds, smuggling and jihadis filling the vacuum in between. Or Iraq and the rise of ISIS.

How do you propose we kill him? There's been a lot of posturing from you but no real specifics.


Posted April 11th by Arch
Arch
 

Fuck this. I’m tired of “my” country playing geopolitical chess with the third world and innocent civilians as pawns, and then anyone who speaks out against the obvious immorality of it all is a communist, terrorist sympathizer, pro-Russian or whatever other derogatory label is in vogue with the establishment, so it’s never any use trying to argue with a hawk who views America as the good guys no matter how much horrible shit we do. Fuck US intervention to hell.

the "alt right neo nazis" are the only ones speaking out against a possible violent war.

WRONG

For all the lipservice the alt-left gives against imperialism, this is what they are advocating here.

Huh? The grassroots/anti-establishment left has been against Syrian intervention from the start.

Posted April 11th by pacman
pacman
 

It must be awesome to be so convinced everyone even slightly to the left of you is a leftist that you forget actual leftists exist

Edited April 11th by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

I can't help wondering what on earth Trump is playing at. He had a very clear non-interventionist mandate and has completely reneged on that. I can only assume that the generals he speaks to are very convincing.

The West still lacks a clear objective in Syria. Airstrikes will achieve absolutely nothing. Bombing a country with no clear objective in mind is abhorrent, and we need to make our minds up: do we want Assad to remain in power, and for Russia to have a hold on the region, or do we want to remove Assad, potentially plunging the country into all-out barbarism (see: Libya).

I would rather the former, though I'm not keen on either option, and I don't see any other options on the table.

Posted April 11th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

I can't help wondering what on earth Trump is playing at. He had a very clear non-interventionist mandate and has completely reneged on that.

Why would you still believe anything Trump says?

Posted April 11th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I can only assume that the generals he speaks to are very convincing.

I suspect this is more the doing of John Bolton than any of the generals, though the generals are also pretty hawkish as a general rule. But we’re talking about Trump - a guy who was talked out of decent healthcare in less than 5 minutes by Paul Ryan. He has no consistent policy positions, no principles and no brains. He isn’t even superficially interested in the common good like other presidents pretend to be. And despite what some seem to think, being rich or a businessman doesn’t guarantee intelligence. Yes, the most powerful nation in the world, in all of human history... is run by a grade-A dumbfuck. Go figure.

Edited April 11th by pacman
pacman
 

Is every single fighter in Syria a terrorist? No, but the scale of conflicting interests within and without these groups means they are virtually all suspect, and cannot be relied upon to cohesively combat Assad (as they often fight each other), let alone lofty Western notions of what constitutes democracy and stable institutions.

I see.

Much different answer than there "no moderate fighters".

Either way, it's clear that they can combat Assad, and have been doing it despite being consistently bombed by Assad and Russia. With new arms, renewed commitment of Western support, and destruction of critical Syrian military infrastructure, they could at the very least have much more leverage in negotiations.

As someone who does not engage in Russian apologetics, my main opposition to this originates in our experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and especially the latter two as more or less unbridled failures of foreign policy.

Hate to break it to you, but Libya would most likely look a lot like Syria right now if we hadn't taken out Gaddafi, prevented a Benghazi massacre, and sat on our hands since.

Regardless, the best defence against Islamic fundamentalism in the region, for better or worse, are secular state institutions. That means Assad.

That's highly debatable.

Brutal authoritarian governments like Assad are just as much a threat to us as governments based on Islamic fundamentalism. And it is precisely because dictators like Gaddafi and Assad spend their lifetime rule destroying any rival political institution or civil society, responding to protests with violence, means that violent opposition and civil war become the only means for change. In this situation, Islamic jihad becomes the most effective organizing force for rebelling against the dictatorship.

We have to accept that the most effective and representative governments in the middle-east will all, to some degree, incorporate Islamism into their political order.

Not least as a substantial proportion of it is fuelled by Wahhabi Saudi meddling and Israeli ultra-hostility, both being obsessed with isolating the phantom apocalyptic power of Iran.

That's an incredibly poor way to describe the regional dynamic, especially when it comes to Israel. It certainly isn't a perfect country, but Hezbollah, the Syrian civil war on its border, Iranian militias spreading into Iraq and Syria pose a deep threat.

One possibility of pulling out and turning our backs on Syria would be that there is suddenly an imbalance that Saudi Arabia and Israel might feel they have to rectify, which could bring the region into an even greater war.

How do you propose we kill him? There's been a lot of posturing from you but no real specifics.

Who's we? It could be us, the rebels, a coup by his own government. My point was that if he is killed, the dynamic of the war will change completely.

Posted April 12th by Agis
Agis
 

From Trump a little while ago:

"Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job ridding region of ISIS. Where is our "Thank you America?"

Another example of "don't take the president literally?" Except now, it's when he says something will happen? Something like this?

We'll see what happens. The White House has said that there's not yet any final decision, and the National Security Council is scheduled to meet and talk about it in the afternoon.

Posted April 12th by Agis
Agis
 

We'll see what happens. The White House has said that there's not yet any final decision, and the National Security Council is scheduled to meet and talk about it in the afternoon.

Obviously Trump is about to mount a massive and devastating twitter attack on Syria.

Posted April 12th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

To those who support intervening in Syria, what is the objective you have in mind? What is the end game here?

There may well be a handful of moderates bravely fighting against Assad, but they do not represent the majority. The majority is mainly in support of Assad, with a significant minority siding with unpleasant Islamist groups. Even if the "moderates" won this conflict - which would require far more from the West than air strikes - they would never be able hold onto the country. History, and certainly recent history in the Middle East, shows that moderates never hang onto the spoils of revolution. Despots always take control in the end.

Clinging to this fantasy of a peaceful, democratic, pluralistic revolution in Syria, in which the Islamists simply vanish into thin air, is causing unnecessary death and suffering. The West, without any clear objective in mind (aside from crushing ISIS, which is practically complete) is only serving to needlessly protract the Syrian civil war.

Posted April 12th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

I say stay out, though after the Bolton appointment however, I have my concerns.

Edited April 12th by Jahoy Hoy
Jahoy Hoy

To those who support intervening in Syria,

Undecided, but your 'it will never work' whining is pushing me towards intervention as you come across as a cowardly loser.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

but your 'it will never work' whining is pushing me towards intervention as you come across as a cowardly loser.

Yeah, he’s such a coward for having a basic sense of foreign policy history and not being a warmongering neo-Cold Warrior asshole who thinks he is progressive and enlightened despite being a typical American supremacist little different from the neocon Republicans who led the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Posted April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

That's not persuasive at all. lol.

But at least you didn't come across as a coward like SA.

Edited April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

RUSSIAN officials claimed to have "proof" that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria was faked by local aid workers on British orders.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/945862/russia-uk-syria-war-chemical-attack-douma-putin

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

America, under president Obama, drew a "red line". It was a bluff and we were correctly called on it by both Assad and the thugs in Russia. That's all ancient history, of course. My argument is more along the lines that it didn't really matter what guarantees Obama did or didn't make. The red line was implicit in our "post war" (if ever a term was more absurd) behavior throughout the second half of the previous century. Most of that has been for the benefit of humanity, and those that doubt this have the luxury of doing so only because they live in a world where America defeated its communist rivals.

Setting all that aside, I don't know what should be done about Syria. But I do know that an America that refuses to respond when a failed state uses WMDs on its own citizens is a changed country. Tucker Carlson is worth paying attention to for those wanting to understand what the youth in the conservative movement believe and want to hear. To that end, Carlson recently seemed to promote the slightly conspiratorial notion that the chemical attack was perpetrated by a group other than the Assad regime in order to keep America in the conflict. What this reveals is that the right leaning people of tomorrow, if not today already, have no more taste for war than do young people on the left. We don't have the stomach for it. The risk of course is that it will be in this way that we abdicate global leadership to far worse powers. In some ways we clearly already have.

Edited April 13th by Famov
Famov

Tucker Carlson? Get out of here you Russian Foxbot.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

That's not persuasive at all. lol.

Frankly I think it’s a waste of my time at this point to attempt to persuade pro-interventionists. Anyone who STILL thinks intervention and occupation - especially of Muslim countries - is a good idea, is clearly too far gone to see reason on the issue. I’m much more interested in showing people who don’t know or care as much about it the tricks employed by the US/NATO/corporate media machine to manufacture consent for all these pointless, horrible wars and permanent occupations. Syria is no different, aside from the fact that intervening will likely have far more dire consequences than any previous intervention (Vietnam was pretty bad though).

Edited April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

Tucker Carlson? Get out of here you Russian Foxbot.

I’m better at insulting Cucker than you, no offense. But I’ve gotta give him credit; Fox must have let him out of his chastity cage just long enough to actually say something and buck establishment orthodoxy by merely questioning the reasoning behind a major military intervention. Tomi Lahren spoke out against Syrian intervention as well iirc. Sad when the only anti-war voices in mainstream media are a bunch of conservative assholes. The left wing establishment - especially MSNBC, which has a history of being hardcore pro-war - is too busy sniffing its own farts and fearmongering about Russia. It’s time to make the left great again by being anti war like at least 80 percent of Americans want and the rest of the world needs.

Posted April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

Frankly I think it’s a waste of my time at this point to attempt to persuade pro-interventionists.

As I briefly mentioned above I am undecided on intervention in Syria. Cowardly arguments like SA's and rantings about media groups are irrelevant.

There are other options and demanding Russia leave Syria is one of many. Taking out Assad is another option.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I mean, you have mentioned wanting to destroy Russia which imo is equally fucked up. My hope/suspicion has been that you’re quite anti-Putin (as am I) but joking/exaggerating when you say things like “Destroy Russia now” and imply we need regime change. What is your actual stance on Russia?

In any case, however, it still seriously baffles me that you of all people are somehow torn on invading and occupying a country that has done nothing to us. At least in the case of Iraq they pretended like Saddam might be an actual threat to us. In this instance, it’s just a straight up imperialist chess game for resources and geopolitical power. And we know damn well this isn’t about human rights, as we fund and ally with the worst of the worst human rights violaters such as Saudi Arabia who, coincidentally, we have paired with to fight a separate proxy war against Russia in Yemen where civilians are being massacred by American rockets and bombs. Fuck it all.

Edited April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

Taking out Assad is another option.

I’d rather not destabilize yet another Middle Eastern country. Granted it’s pretty unstable as it is, but history shows that America tends to fuck up these countries even more rather than helping, and it’s not like the military industrial complex has good intentions to begin with. I would go into US military atrocities over the past few decades to further drive home that point, but I’m too lazy and we’ve committed so many of them as I’m sure you’re aware.

Not to mention getting involved in Syria and escalating with Russia in general (they aren’t exactly noble, but we escalate with them far more than they do with us) is inching us closer to WW3, no exaggeration. The battle lines are so sharply drawn that it seems all but inevitable if US doesn’t completely rethink its geopolitics.

Posted April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

I mean, you have mentioned wanting to destroy Russia which imo is equally fucked up. My hope/suspicion has been that you’re quite anti-Putin (as am I) but joking/exaggerating when you say things like “Destroy Russia now” and imply we need regime change. What is your actual stance on Russia?

Anti-Putin is accurate, war is not the only solution. More sanctions would be a good start and escalation to freezing assets, ect as appropriate. Russia needs to be taken down several notches while Putin or future leaders like Putin are in power. But war is not off the table and that must be made clear to Putin.


As Mitch McConnell said as much as I dislike quoting him.
"Russia is not our friend"

One big obstacle is Moron Trump who is inconveniently sidetracked with his lawyer under investigation is freaked out by the FBI and Comey's book among other things.
Is Trump starting to realize it was a mistake to run for office?

Putin has us right where he wants US


Edited April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Not to mention getting involved in Syria and escalating with Russia in general (they aren’t exactly noble, but we escalate with them far more than they do with us) is inching us closer to WW3, no exaggeration. The battle lines are so sharply drawn that it seems all but inevitable if US doesn’t completely rethink its geopolitics.

War with Russia in inevitable. Do it before their technology is greater than ours.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

It’s only inevitable if America makes it so.

Posted April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

I suspect Trump is about to announce that we are about to attack Syria.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Missiles have been shot at Syria apparently.

Posted April 13th by Xhin
Xhin
 

Also I don't think we're anywhere near going to war with russia.. we somehow avoided it for 50 years when they were a communist superpower, so avoiding it when trump and putin are kinda buddy-buddy should be easy.

Posted April 13th by Xhin
Xhin
 

Obviously the UK was behind the chemical attacks./s

SHOCK as UK academics SUPPORT Syrian and Russian conspiracy theories after chemical ATTACK
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/945937/world-war-3-academics-syria-russia-conspiracy-theories-chemical-attack

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

@xhin

The soviet union was a super power that could match us both economically and militarily

Russia as of right now is a regional power that can't even begin to match us in either category. I think a war against russia is more than possible right now.

Posted April 13th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Russia as of right now is a regional power that can't even begin to match us in either category. I think a war against russia is more than possible right now.

The US has been reluctant to risk US lives where Putin may be more willing to risk Russian lives which may cause the US to back down. In the US right wing "stand your ground" only applies to civilian gun fights.

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

The people you could have counted on to cause an uproar about a pointless war in the middle East are by and large intoxicated with their bloodlust for Russia over Hillary not getting her turn to be president. I wouldn't count on the US backing down here.

Posted April 13th by Dr. Doom
Dr. Doom
 

Obviously the UK was behind the chemical attacks./s

I don’t know about the UK lol, but ISIS and other rebel groups have a well known history of carrying out chemical attacks and then making it look like it was Assad. It would be dishonest to paint anyone questioning who did this as a conspiracy nut or whatever.

Posted April 13th by pacman
pacman
 

I wouldn't count on the US backing down here.

It wouldn't be just the US, Briton and France have committed.
How many other allies would join if things escalate?

Who would join with Russia against at a minimum the US and Europe?

Posted April 13th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Who would join with Russia against at a minimum the US and Europe?


At this point no one comes to mind. China has better things to do and the countries of the former soviet republic are alienated by Russian Imperialism.

I dont think it will come to war. Russia has way too much to lose.

Posted April 13th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Russia warns of ‘consequences,’ slams Trump in wake of Syria attack
https://nypost.com/2018/04/13/russia-warns-of-consequences-slams-trump-in-wake-of-syria-attack/
Moscow lashed out at Washington, London and Paris in the wake of Allied airstrikes on military facilities connected to Syria’s chemical weapons stash.

“We are being threatened,” according to a statement from the Kremlin. “We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

The Kremlin took personal umbrage that President Trump called out Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for failing to control Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his use of chemical weapons against his own people.

“Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible,” the Kremlin said.

The US didn’t notify Moscow of the early Saturday morning attacks on Russia’s ally Syria.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford said the Syrian targets struck were selected, in part, to minimize risks that any Russians would be killed in the attacks.

"We specifically identified these targets to mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved,” Dunford said. “We do not do any coordination with the Russians on the strikes and nor did we pre-notify them. “

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

“Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible,” the Kremlin said.

Putin has big ears and a funny nose, nah nah nah!

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Russia as of right now is a regional power that can't even begin to match us in either category. I think a war against russia is more than possible right now.

I disagree.

We don't have the resolve to intervene and topple Assad. We certainly don't have the resolve to kill Russian soldiers and destroy their military in Syria.

While we could beat them in a conventional conflict, assuming that we can keep the conflict conventional and beating them wouldn't penetrate into their territory or target their civilians, we don't have that kind of resolve for Syria. We need to consider that in the case of, say, a Russian invasion of Ukraine or an invasion of an Eastern European NATO member.

Posted April 14th by Agis
Agis
 

We don't have the resolve to intervene and topple Assad

Some News article claims Assad fled to Iran.
That sounds like a beginning.

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I doubt that.

Posted April 14th by Agis
Agis
 

Much different answer than there "no moderate fighters".

Semantics. There are no viable moderate groups to support. This is not conditional on every single person holding "moderate" views which is clearly an impossible and immeasurable metric.

Either way, it's clear that they can combat Assad, and have been doing it despite being consistently bombed by Assad and Russia. With new arms, renewed commitment of Western support, and destruction of critical Syrian military infrastructure, they could at the very least have much more leverage in negotiations.

Yes, prolong this conflict for even longer, excellent idea. And to hell with all the humanitarian consequences and effects in the region.

I don't know if you noticed, but the Assad government has made consistent gains and regained territory that was lost in the earlier periods of the conflict, off the back of Russian logistical and asset support. They're on the verge of winning. To reverse this state of affairs requires more than just supporting non-existent "moderate" rebels.

Hate to break it to you, but Libya would most likely look a lot like Syria right now if we hadn't taken out Gaddafi, prevented a Benghazi massacre, and sat on our hands since.

You've said this before, and you were wrong then, so not sure why you would repeat it.

There was not going to be a Benghazi massacre and mass reprisals against Libyan citizens didn't occur.

And, sure, if we deliberately prolonged a conflict by supporting largely Islamic fundamentalist proxies in the country, then yes, it'd look pretty similar. But of course, you're happy anyway seeing as the immediate military objectives were achieved. The fact that Libya as a state has completely collapsed is simply collateral. Nevermind though, got to see those weapon systems in action!

Brutal authoritarian governments like Assad are just as much a threat to us as governments based on Islamic fundamentalism.

How?

And it is precisely because dictators like Gaddafi and Assad spend their lifetime rule destroying any rival political institution or civil society, responding to protests with violence, means that violent opposition and civil war become the only means for change. In this situation, Islamic jihad becomes the most effective organizing force for rebelling against the dictatorship.

We have to accept that the most effective and representative governments in the middle-east will all, to some degree, incorporate Islamism into their political order.

Yes, because no jihadist group or Islamic regime ever engages in human rights abuses. This is confirmation then you believe its justifiable to support jihadists, even when they are by definition outwardly hostile to Western interests and have no interest in complying with international law in the long-term.

Objective evidence shows that the least effective governments in the ME are those incorporating Islamism the most, and Islam has no interest in being representative whenever it mixes with government. As for repression, and the whole gamut of human rights abuses that regimes engage in around the world, you've made the convenient ommission that Islamic theocracies like Iran or ultra-orthodox Sunni states such as Saudi and Pakistan see some sort of violation on a daily basis, by both state and non-state actors, because of a brand of Islamism or Islamic jurisprudence being employed.

The post-war Ba'athist regimes and their counterparts around the ME were and are authoritarian states that engaged in human rights violations. But from a normative point of view in international relations, they could be engaged with and had institutions that could form the basis for change. Islamism is completely retrograde movement that ignores all of this.

That's an incredibly poor way to describe the regional dynamic, especially when it comes to Israel. It certainly isn't a perfect country, but Hezbollah, the Syrian civil war on its border, Iranian militias spreading into Iraq and Syria pose a deep threat.

It is one of the many dynamics in the region. But somehow, to you, Iranian-backed fighters pose an existential threat to Israel, and that it has no agency in the matter (or any others). Besides, greater proliferation of Iranian-backed groups around Israel is a by-product of instability in Syria - a factor you're willing to exacerbate by prolonging the conflict, and letting jihadist fighters control territory unmolested.

One possibility of pulling out and turning our backs on Syria would be that there is suddenly an imbalance that Saudi Arabia and Israel might feel they have to rectify, which could bring the region into an even greater war.

An "imbalance" that was there before in the form of historical Russian support for the Syrian Ba'athist regime. The status quo is that of a Syrian secular state controlling its territory. Saudi Arabia and Israel will always feel the need to "rectify", and do so without much input from other international powers. There'll be no change there.

But, hey, so long as your neoliberal hawkist urges are satisfied, hundreds of thousands more are dead and the Saudi-backed jihadist's nasheed is sung in the streets of Damascus, it's fine.

Who's we? It could be us, the rebels, a coup by his own government. My point was that if he is killed, the dynamic of the war will change completely.

So no real plan, just posturing. Got it.

Posted April 14th by Arch
Arch
 

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Posted April 14th by pacman
pacman
 

Missile Dissonance: U.S., Russia Give Vastly Divergent Accounts Of Syria Air Strikes
https://www.rferl.org/a/missile-dissonance-u-s-russia-give-vastly-divergent-accounts-of-syria-air-strikes/29167775.html
Moscow claimed on April 14 that Syrian air defenses intercepted 71 out of 103 missiles it said were launched in air strikes carried out in Syria earlier that morning in a joint operation by the United States, Britain, and France.

The Pentagon, however, contradicted that claim, with the director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff telling a news briefing that "none of our aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defenses."

---------------------------------------------------

Will we get the actual score card?

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I’m guessing the establishment is going to claim Trump didn’t go far enough, and Trump being the insecure, easily manipulated manchild he is, will say “I IS THE TOUGHEST ON RUSSIA, CHECK OUT MY BIG RED WHITE AND BLUE DICK!” and escalate further. Either that or they will remove Trump from office and escalate it thenselves through Pence or a Democrat.

Posted April 14th by pacman
pacman
 

I'm still waiting to hear if they bombed a bunch of empty buildings.

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

That’s best case scenario tbh

Posted April 14th by pacman
pacman
 

Yeah, we'd know is was all a big fireworks show put on by Trump and Putin.

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

I don’t think even you believe that, but you know what? I DO wish America would be less hawkish toward Russia and the rest of the world whenever they refuse to bow down. Fuck US militarism and supremacy. Tired of this shit. Let’s work on health care or infrastructure or SOMETHING other than perpetuating the military industrial complex to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

Also, if we invade and occupy I would consider it worse than Iraq which you used to obsess over. I miss the anti-war Psygnosis. And frankly I miss the anti war left.

Posted April 14th by pacman
pacman
 

Also, if we invade and occupy

I still don't get this old traditional thinking style, why go to all that trouble when you can precision bomb their leadership and tell them to have a new election?

Putin looks weak to his right wing followers for siting out this attack on Syria at the moment, even though it was the smart thing to do. He still has his objective of permanent middle eastern military bases in Syria.

Posted April 14th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Semantics. There are no viable moderate groups to support. This is not conditional on every single person holding "moderate" views which is clearly an impossible and immeasurable metric.

We don’t have to limit our support to just moderate groups, but it’s important to remember that they do exist and not to let ourselves be bogged down by our own anti-islamic prejudices.

Yes, prolong this conflict for even longer, excellent idea. And to hell with all the humanitarian consequences and effects in the region.

I don't know if you noticed, but the Assad government has made consistent gains and regained territory that was lost in the earlier periods of the conflict, off the back of Russian logistical and asset support. They're on the verge of winning. To reverse this state of affairs requires more than just supporting non-existent "moderate" rebels.

First, don’t bother making a “humanitarian” argument at this point in the discussion, because it’s clear you only care when it’s convenient.

Second, you’re right, Assad has made great gains based Russian brutality and chemical weapons. But that will become a lot harder as the war continues into Rojava, assuming there’s no acceptable negotiation to an end of hostilities.

You've said this before, and you were wrong then, so not sure why you would repeat it.

There was not going to be a Benghazi massacre and mass reprisals against Libyan citizens didn't occur.

Forces from Tripoli were en route to Benghazi to put down the protests with force. I followed the events at the time. It’s true.

That was good, and what was wrong was not giving adequate support to Libya and joining with European countries to restore order and infrastructure. It’s terrible that that didn’t happen.

Brutal authoritarian governments like Assad are just as much a threat to us as governments based on Islamic fundamentalism.

How?

How, what?

Yes, because no jihadist group or Islamic regime ever engages in human rights abuses. This is confirmation then you believe its justifiable to support jihadists, even when they are by definition outwardly hostile to Western interests and have no interest in complying with international law in the long-term.

Jihad is not, “by definition”, hostile to Western interests, and it certainly doesn’t preclude them from abiding by International Law at least as well as Saddam and Assad.

Objective evidence shows that the least effective governments in the ME are those incorporating Islamism the most, and Islam has no interest in being representative whenever it mixes with government. As for repression, and the whole gamut of human rights abuses that regimes engage in around the world, you've made the convenient ommission that Islamic theocracies like Iran or ultra-orthodox Sunni states such as Saudi and Pakistan see some sort of violation on a daily basis, by both state and non-state actors, because of a brand of Islamism or Islamic jurisprudence being employed.

There is no such “objective evidence”. The Islamic World is large, with various forms of government that co-opt and incorporate Islamic thought and teaching, which the West will have to accept to some extent. Do you honestly think brutal, authoritarian dictators will be able to change this?

The post-war Ba'athist regimes and their counterparts around the ME were and are authoritarian states that engaged in human rights violations. But from a normative point of view in international relations, they could be engaged with and had institutions that could form the basis for change. Islamism is completely retrograde movement that ignores all of this.

Like I said, the regimes of Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad both had regimes that were based around the authoritarian dictator. There are few good mechanisms for succession, mechanisms like election that bestow legitimacy, and a lack of any other political parties or institutions that could conceivably take over. This is why dictatorships are fundamentally fragile and given to violence, civil war and chaos.

It is one of the many dynamics in the region. But somehow, to you, Iranian-backed fighters pose an existential threat to Israel, and that it has no agency in the matter (or any others). Besides, greater proliferation of Iranian-backed groups around Israel is a by-product of instability in Syria - a factor you're willing to exacerbate by prolonging the conflict, and letting jihadist fighters control territory unmolested.

It certainly has some form of agency, but no state enjoys full agency in any matter, it is constrained by certain factors and must act prudently. It is not inconceivable that Israel’s calculation for whether or not to use force is based in some part on the moderating influence of the US and its current presence.

If we leave, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states and non-state actors will still pour into the country to combat Assad and protect Sunni Arabs.

This war will likely be further exacerbated if we were to leave. Filling in vacuums and all.

So no real plan, just posturing. Got it.

That’s right, no real plan at all besides a yearning for US adopting a cohesive and consistent strategy. I’ve been open about that since the beginning. I’d much rather sit back and share information on the unfolding situation and analyze with GT’s crack geopolitical team.


Posted Sunday by Agis
Agis
 

It's clear that Agis' bizarre fetish for Islam has made him utterly incapable of rational thinking.

We should accept the rule of Islamists in Syria? We should not limit our support to moderates??! Jihad is not hostile to Western interests and international law?

Have you lost your mind?

Or are we all awful bigots for preferring secularism and pluralism to the lopping off of heads and the stoning to death of women, homosexuals and non-believers?

Posted Sunday by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

We will have to accept some countries are going to be Islamist. Just look at the world today, with such countries as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia and perhaps Egypt, Afghanistan and Syria in the future.

This is called coexistence and it's the foundation of peace.


Posted Sunday by Agis
Agis
 

This is called coexistence

Fuck coexistence. I prefer physical removal.

Posted Sunday by #85
#85

I still don't get this old traditional thinking style, why go to all that trouble when you can precision bomb their leadership and tell them to have a new election?

Trump himself was the one who implied he wanted to. And with Bolton in there, pretty much any sort of extreme hawkish measures are possible.

Posted Sunday by pacman
pacman
 

Saudi could slowly lead Islam down a more moderate path if we were to put pressure on them. Instead we’re helping them bomb the shit out of Yemen.

Posted Sunday by pacman
pacman
 

Fuck coexistence. I prefer physical removal


I'm sure Jesus Christ felt the same way.

Posted Sunday by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

We will have to accept some countries are going to be Islamist.

I don't disagree.

I just disagree with your view that we should help along these Islamist revolutions by launching illegal attacks on foreign countries.

Posted Sunday by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

So the choice is Syria becoming an Islamic theocracy vs allowing Putin's Russian Empire building..... Hmmm......

Destroy Russia Now!!!

Posted Sunday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Supposedly new sanctions against Russia coming on Monday.

Posted Sunday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

We should be helping these groups defend themselves, their family, and their homes from brutal attacks by Assad. We should not support ISIS, and also maybe Al-Nusra and other groups.

We should also support the Alawites, the government's military and all other forces to remain in control of the territory they have. We should adopt the message that they have an important role to play in the future of Syria, but not under Assad.

Same with the Kurds, we should support the autonomous and self-defended Kurdish state within Syria.

It's in this context, without Assad, that negotiations for an end to hostilities can actually be successful.

Posted Sunday by Agis
Agis
 

We should be helping these groups defend themselves, their family, and their homes from brutal attacks by Assad. 

No we shouldn't. You can go there an do that if you want, but you'd rather just have other people do it and reap the virtue signal points of the action.

We should not support ISIS

That's who Assad is fighting. Among other loosely affiliated groups.

but not under Assad

Assad is a stable leader and Syria is one of the most secular countries in the region. We are talking about an Islamic country which has public healthcare and women can get educated. Not exactly common in that area.

Same with the Kurds, we should support the autonomous and self-defended Kurdish state within Syria. 

Why? Why get involved?




Posted Monday by #85
#85

Thread theme :



Posted Monday by #85
#85

This discussion is not accepting any new participants at the moment.

Posted Monday by Agis
Agis
 

So the choice is Syria becoming an Islamic theocracy vs allowing Putin's Russian Empire building..... Hmmm......

Destroy Russia Now!!!

For someone who speaks so harshly about religion, you're quite a geopolitical dogmatist.

Posted Monday by pacman
pacman
 

We don’t have to limit our support to just moderate groups, but it’s important to remember that they do exist and not to let ourselves be bogged down by our own anti-islamic prejudices.

It isn't anti-Islamic "prejudice"; it's objective and observable policy trends. All evidence shows that funding overtly Islamist groups always leads to fundamental problems later down the line.

Unless you can provide me with some sourced analysis that there is a viable moderate opposition to support militarily, you're going to keep going round in circles on this point.

First, don’t bother making a “humanitarian” argument at this point in the discussion, because it’s clear you only care when it’s convenient.

This doesn't look like addressing my points to me. Besides, your entire foreign policy outlook is based on convenience.

The burden of proof remains with hawks to demonstrate how they think intervention is in anyway beneficial (without resorting to gnomic phrases and thinking). Do you deny prolonging the conflict will lead to more deaths and regional instability?

Second, you’re right, Assad has made great gains based Russian brutality and chemical weapons. But that will become a lot harder as the war continues into Rojava, assuming there’s no acceptable negotiation to an end of hostilities.

This is assuming our glorious NATO ally Turkey hasn't intervened before then - and given Ankara's support for so-called moderate rebels, that doesn't exactly align it with Damascus (the latter citing Turkish encircling of Afrin as a violation of sovereignty). Assad's final position on Kurdish Rojava is yet to be seen, especially considering Russia's general level of support for Kurds regionally. The level of (frosty) cooperation between YPG units and Syrian government troops indicates negotiation is more likely than fighting US-backed Kurds - a more serious undertaking than fighting isolated rebels around Idlib and Aleppo.

Forces from Tripoli were en route to Benghazi to put down the protests with force. I followed the events at the time. It’s true.

That was good, and what was wrong was not giving adequate support to Libya and joining with European countries to restore order and infrastructure. It’s terrible that that didn’t happen.

Except all evidence when reported by observing international agencies and NGOs on the ground demonstrated that the Gaddafi regime never engaged in mass reprisals against citizens and was prone to rhetoric that simply suggested that might happen. Casualty reports, which showed a clear disparity between male and female casualty numbers, demonstrated as such. The Gaddafi regime had no history of mass reprisals. The same exaggeration was had over the presence of "African" mercernaries in Libya.

There was no track record for it before NATO intervention. It wasn't going to happen. You can read about it more here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/11902.htm

And when you destroy the entire basis of a state by ripping out an incumbent regime, it tends to make restructuring difficult. But the West didn't know any better, it's definitely not seen that before and definitely doesn't have a track record of failed restructuring.

How, what?

How are authoritarian governments such as Assad's more of a danger to us than Islamic fundamentalism. You made an assertion without any reasoning.

Jihad is not, “by definition”, hostile to Western interests, and it certainly doesn’t preclude them from abiding by International Law at least as well as Saddam and Assad.

Jihad within the context of Islamist groups most definitely is - and that's exactly what we're talking about here. Unless somehow you've been living under a rock for the past two decades.

The Saddams and Assads or the world can be dealt with within a scheme of international law. ISIS and al-Qaeda reject the entire basis of it.

There is no such “objective evidence”. The Islamic World is large, with various forms of government that co-opt and incorporate Islamic thought and teaching, which the West will have to accept to some extent. Do you honestly think brutal, authoritarian dictators will be able to change this?

Must've been imagining all that sectarian violence, anti-Western sentiment, denial of women's and LGBT rights, lack of development and lower standards of living. There's a reason stable secular states with institutions strengthened by longevity always do better than theocracies.

My assertion is not that authoritarianism is inherently desirable or the best state of affairs conducive to change. My assertion is that it is preferable to the distinctly unpredictable and irredeemable chaos of Islamists taking the helm, which we've seen time and time again, and is what you are seriously proposing.

And of course the West is going to have to recognise some form Islam involved in governments across the Middle East; they're Islamic societies. That doesn't mean its something we should support or foster, let alone directly supporting Islamist groups blatantly hostile to our interests.

Like I said, the regimes of Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad both had regimes that were based around the authoritarian dictator. There are few good mechanisms for succession, mechanisms like election that bestow legitimacy, and a lack of any other political parties or institutions that could conceivably take over. This is why dictatorships are fundamentally fragile and given to violence, civil war and chaos.

They nonetheless have a substructure inimical to change given the circumstances they originated in (mid-twentieth Arab nationalism) and the context they operate in (interacting with other nation-states as such). Compare this to Islamic fundamentalism, which refuses to entertain democracy, or pluralism, or secular division of law, or human rights of any kind beyond promotion of whatever sect of Islam happens to control the area.

It certainly has some form of agency, but no state enjoys full agency in any matter, it is constrained by certain factors and must act prudently. It is not inconceivable that Israel’s calculation for whether or not to use force is based in some part on the moderating influence of the US and its current presence.

Most likely, but you're not denying it has regional interests just like any other actor, are you?

If we leave, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states and non-state actors will still pour into the country to combat Assad and protect Sunni Arabs.

This war will likely be further exacerbated if we were to leave. Filling in vacuums and all.

Well, as our other set of glorious so-called allies, we'll be able to pressure them not to, no?

Besides, they're already intervening via their proxies. You seem to have ignored what I said, that the status quo isn't civil war.

And the Syrian regime has never prosecuted a exclusively sectarian campaign against Sunnis, and seeing as they constitute a bedrock of support for Assad (despite reports to the contrary), it's not going to start one any time soon.

That's right, no real plan at all besides a yearning for US adopting a cohesive and consistent strategy. I’ve been open about that since the beginning.

Supporting disparate groups and intervening without any regards to seeing an end to the conflict is not a cohesive and consistent strategy (or, at least, it's consistent in that it's the consistently disasterous strategy).

Typically foreign policy planning requires cooler heads, even if more often than not the wrong people are holding the reins.

Edited Monday by Arch
Arch
 

Apparently cowardly Russian sympathizer Trump is backing off of further sanctions against Russia.


For someone who speaks so harshly about religion, you're quite a geopolitical dogmatist.

Thank you.

Posted Monday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

My assertion is not that authoritarianism is inherently desirable or the best state of affairs conducive to change. My assertion is that it is preferable to the distinctly unpredictable and irredeemable chaos of Islamists taking the helm, which we've seen time and time again, and is what you are seriously proposing.

Authoritarianism, Islam, same thing.

Posted Monday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Thank you.

At least you admit your blind loyalty to the US war/propaganda machine, I suppose.

Posted Monday by pacman
pacman
 

At least you admit your blind loyalty to the US war/propaganda machine, I suppose.

Are you trying to defend Russia?

Posted Monday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Were you trying to defend Saddam in opposing the Iraq War?

You’re above this kind of nonsensical argumentation Psyg.

Posted Tuesday by pacman
pacman
 

Were you trying to defend Saddam in opposing the Iraq War?

There was no need to invade and occupy the whole country. Saddam agreed to surrender himself 14 hours before the invasion and Bush responded by saying Too late and went forward with the invasion. Do you remember any of this?


Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Sure do, and that’s why I always against going into Iraq (even in the HW days). We’re still there btw. When’s the last time you advocated for gtfoing? Or was your anti-Iraq war stance just one of your many partisan talking points during the Bush era?

Do you remember the time Gaddafi gave up his weapons and then we went in and killed him anyway? Remember when Assad did the same? Not even going to start on all the shit we did during the Cold War.

Or more recently, do you remember when we funded both sides of this conflict in Syria including ISIS amd Al Nusra? Or when rebel groups did chemical attacks and blamed it on Assad?

How about when one of our airstrikes killed Russian troops? But sure, keep pretending to believe Trump and Putin are bffs.

Edited Tuesday by pacman
pacman
 

Oh and btw that last strike on Syria hit an anti-venom medical center. You won’t hear about that in Western mainstream media though, as they want to perpetuate the notion that Trump is somehow being too soft militarily, because we are apparently ruled by even bigger sociopaths than I thought.

Posted Tuesday by pacman
pacman
 

because we are apparently ruled by even bigger sociopaths than I thought.

Konstantin Malofeev?
Konstantin Rykov?

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Oh and btw that last strike on Syria hit an anti-venom medical center.

I know, its was just a fireworks show put on by Trump and Putin.

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Putin and Russia can be a good ally. Rather team up with them than jews or radical Islamic terrorists.

Posted Tuesday by #85
#85

How about when one of our airstrikes killed Russian troops?

Mercenaries, giving Russia so-called plausible deniability.

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Putin and Russia can be a good ally.

Are you Konstantin Rykov?

Posted Tuesday by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Psyg,

Western allies kept pushing the idea that this facility was really a secret chemical weapons stash. Glad to see you also think that story is complete horseshit.

Posted Tuesday by pacman
pacman
 

I'm learning Russian so i can turn over pro-war leftists to the Spetznaz when Russia invades.

Posted Wednesday by #85
#85

A neo Nazi and a traitor . why am I not surprised.

Posted Wednesday by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

85,

if you want Russia to invade the US , then you are also pro-war, genius.

Posted Wednesday by pacman
pacman
 

I don't want us to be invaded, but I do want the system to collapse in some way so we can have a different system.

Posted Thursday by #85
#85

could yall imagine the venom that 85 would be spewing if a leftist had said what he posted? lol

Posted Thursday by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

I'm learning Russian so i can turn over pro-war leftists to the Spetznaz when Russia invades.


I'm learning classical Latin, but for less pragmatic reasons. If you haven't looked into Latin, I would highly recommend it. Learning any new language helps exercise the mind, even though Latin is one of the easiest for native English speakers. It's a noble language and worthy, especially if you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true religion, of intellectual interest.

Personally, I'm learning it as an academic auxiliary language. I've decided that it will be the language that I will write my manifesto in, given that it is classical, European and of a great civilized culture, yet dead and thus requiring academic rigor in order to read, without requiring specific guidance from me personally. Besides that, I plan to begin using it as my language of choice whenever serious debate is had, due to the relative lack of vagary when compared to English.

I also hope, though this is far more ephemeral, that it will help cement my mind in the more grounded and ironpill-ish classical culture, by the way of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Posted Thursday by nullfather
nullfather
Reply to: Who is pushing for Syrian intervention ?

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on