- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Russians say the chemical attack was by the rebels, America says by Assad.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:39 am to Iosh
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:39 am to Iosh
quote:
Don't know if you could've stomached their Marxism
The only thing that would have stopped me would have been (other than the death/danger, obviously) would have been the unfortunate probability of there being a Lincoln Brigades stigma.
Their marxism isn't as important to me.
0
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:44 am to Pbhog
quote:
There it is, a republican siding with a dictator rather than our biggest Allie in world, Britain
And you're siding with ISIS
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:46 am to Antonio Moss
Most of this forum literally does not have the brain capacity to conceive of a war with more than two sides
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:49 am to Iosh
do we even know how many "sides" are really fighting in Syria right now?
Syria seems like one of the most complex wars ever, post WWII
all the different interests for the different proxy wars makes it exponentially worse
Syria seems like one of the most complex wars ever, post WWII
all the different interests for the different proxy wars makes it exponentially worse
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:50 am to Pbhog
quote:Are you implying that we should always agree with our "biggest Allie"(sic) when considering sending our military into foreign conflicts?
There it is, a republican siding with a dictator rather than our biggest Allie in world, Britain.... why do republicans look up to dictators so much?
quote:
To retreat now, I believe, would put at hazard all that we hold dearest, turn the UN back into a talking shop, stifle the first steps of progress in the Middle East; leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of events on which we would have relinquished all power to influence for the better. Tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment when they need our determination that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a course. This is not the time to falter. This is the time for this house, not just this government or indeed this prime minister, but for this house to give a lead, to show that we will stand up for what we know to be right, to show that we will confront the tyrannies and dictatorships and terrorists who put our way of life at risk, to show at the moment of decision that we have the courage to do the right thing.
- PM Tony Blair, Speech to Parliament, 18 March 2003
quote:With which of the above viewpoints did you agree back then? With which do you agree in retrospect?
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
- Barack Obama, 2 October 2002
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:51 am to MrLarson
lol republicans bitched and moaned about obama doing this for 4 years. Hypocrits
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 10:53 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:53 am to Pbhog
quote:
lol republicans bitched and moaned about obama doing this for 4 years. Hypocrits
supporting rebel groups is not "standing this one out", bro
also Obama did create that infamous "Red line" (that admittedly didn't result in anything b/c it was a paper tiger)
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:54 am to Iosh
quote:
Most of this forum literally does not have the brain capacity to conceive of a war with more than two sides
There are definitely more than two sides (or better stated, more than two interests) but that doesn't change the fact that our two allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - are directly funding ISIS and Al-Nusar to fight against Al-Saad. Saudi Arabia and Qatar want Al-Saad gone because his is a shite regime. The problem is the "moderate" rebellion (whom condemn the assistance they receive from ISIS and Al-Nusar) have zero capacity for governing a united and stable Syria. Removal of Al-Saad will result in massive destabilization of the region and lead to further expansion and stability of extremist forces in the region.
Obviously Al-Saad is a bad guy but haven't we learned that taking out a bad leader doesn't necessarily lead to a better result (here's looking at you, W.) Russia is right on this issue. The only force currently fighting in Syria that has any chance of stabilizing hat region is Al-Saad.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:55 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
but that doesn't change the fact that our two allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar
speaking of, what's going on in Yemen right now?
Posted on 4/5/17 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do we even know how many "sides" are really fighting in Syria right now?
Syria seems like one of the most complex wars ever, post WWII
all the different interests for the different proxy wars makes it exponentially worse
There are several main 'sides'.
USA/EU/Saudis/Al Queda: Want Assad gone so because he said no to building a pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe to give Europe cheaper LNG than currently getting from Russia
Russia/Iran/Assad: Do not want pipeline built, because it increases Saudi Arabia's power over Europe and in the Middle East, and decreases Russia's influence in Europe and Iran's in the middle east.
ISIS: Was part of US/EU/AQ side but is now more of a liability.
Kurds: frick the Turks, gas the Arabs, race war now
Turkey: Various motivations, not really on anyone's side, but not really against anyone either. I think they're just having fun because they get to kill Kurds, Arabs, and spend US money.
This image should be the first thing that comes up for "Why is there war in Syria?"
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 11:00 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:01 am to cokebottleag
yeah those are the major coalitions (and lol yes Turkey is just in this to kill Kurds..probably the biggest example of "this is a bunch of bullshite" in the entire conflict)....but i'd imagine WITHIN those coalitions there is a bunch of internal conflict, further splintering the actual "sides"
to put it another way, if any of these non-Assad coalitions was to gain power, how long would it take before they had a "civil war" within the ruling group? a year?
to put it another way, if any of these non-Assad coalitions was to gain power, how long would it take before they had a "civil war" within the ruling group? a year?
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yeah those are the major coalitions (and lol yes Turkey is just in this to kill Kurds..probably the biggest example of "this is a bunch of bullshite" in the entire conflict)....but i'd imagine WITHIN those coalitions there is a bunch of internal conflict, further splintering the actual "sides"
to put it another way, if any of these non-Assad coalitions was to gain power, how long would it take before they had a "civil war" within the ruling group? a year?
Agreed. I had to think for a minute before removing ISIS from the US/EU/Saudi/AQ side. They really didn't read the script of how this was supposed to go.
I don't know if I'd give it a full year if Assad fell. As much as the NeoCons here keep calling for Assad to die, no one can reasonably make the argument that any replacement would be measurably better for the Syrian people, and would likely be markedly worse for minorities in the country (Christians, Alawites, etc).
The whole thing gives me a bad taste in my mouth, because the sudden (and it was sudden) demand for Assad to go because he was a big meanie came as soon as the powers that be realized he would under no circumstances agree to a Saudi owned pipeline being built through Syria.
Side note on Turkey:
You can see witht he two pipelines proposed through Turkey, WHY they are on the fence between both the Russian and US/EU/Saudi side. Either way, they win and get a pipeline through Turkey that they can exert control over, they just don't want to side with the loser.
This post was edited on 4/5/17 at 11:08 am
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do we even know how many "sides" are really fighting in Syria right now?
As briefly as possible:
Al-Saad (leader of Syria)
Supported by Iran due to religious ties- both are shiite - and Iran's number one rival is Saudi Arabia
Supported by Russia because destabilization is Syria immediately and severely affects Russian national security and because Russia holds the Port of Taurus on the Mediterranean Coast in Syria. Furthermore, Russia has economic interest in Al-Saad remaining in power.
Supported by China because China as economic interest in the Al-Saad regime and China has a long-standing policy of opposing regime change by outside forces.
Supported by Hezbollah because Hezbollah is shiite extremist group.
Rebellion
Free Syria Army is the moderate paramilitary group at the center of the Rebellion whose state interest is regime change for a more democratic Syria.
ISIS/ISIL is the Sunni Extremist paramilitary group who seeks regime change in Syria in order to establish a Sunni caliphate in the larger region and a nation of operations. They are funded by Saudi Arabia.
Al-Nusar is a Sunni Extremist paramilitary group seeking a regime change in Syria to establish a Sunni government. They are supported by Qatar.
75 other smaller extremist groups are engaged in the fighting as well.
Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS because it wants Al-Saad gone on religious grounds (Saudi Arabia is sunni) and to weaken Iran. Same for Qatar
The U.S. and its Western Allies support the rebellion and regime change supposedly because of war crimes by Al-Saad but more likely because our two allies - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - want him gone.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:10 am to Placebeaux
quote:
No, I refuse to side with Saudi Arabia.
It's the heart of the most peaceful and tolerant religion.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:12 am to Pbhog
quote:
lol republicans bitched and moaned about obama doing this for 4 years. Hypocrits
You don't think Obama picked a side?
Why do you think the RINOs and Dems have such a hard-on to go to war with Russia?
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do we even know how many "sides" are really fighting in Syria right now?
I heard on NPR a few months ago that at one point US had some special forces assisting the Kurds. Then the Kurds were attacked by the Turks. In effect, our troops were then fighting alongside our Kurdish allies against our NATO Turkish allies. It's so awesome.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:13 am to cokebottleag
the problem is just how we view conflict compared to how they view conflict
like take America...our "war values" are still based in the Revolutionary War but most recently WWII. when we "win", we try to mold the losing side into our values system (although the post-WWII division of Europe was pretty terrible, but we couldn't really do anything). we don't have this irrational belief against the common people who were our prior enemies
the Middle East (as well as other areas, like Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia) has been at war for so long with so many cultural and ethnic conflicts/oppression that they are just harder people. when one side "wins", they think of this as an opportunity to slaughter their prior enemies, regardless of the individual participation in the actual conflict. they still see victory in war as requiring of spoils and a license to exert dominion over the losing side
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
like take America...our "war values" are still based in the Revolutionary War but most recently WWII. when we "win", we try to mold the losing side into our values system (although the post-WWII division of Europe was pretty terrible, but we couldn't really do anything). we don't have this irrational belief against the common people who were our prior enemies
the Middle East (as well as other areas, like Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia) has been at war for so long with so many cultural and ethnic conflicts/oppression that they are just harder people. when one side "wins", they think of this as an opportunity to slaughter their prior enemies, regardless of the individual participation in the actual conflict. they still see victory in war as requiring of spoils and a license to exert dominion over the losing side
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:19 am to biglego
Turkey being in NATO is one of the biggest worries about all of this
it's more of a hypothetical threat, but it can easily be used to manufacture some real "shite just got real" scenarios
this somewhat keeps Russia neutered, but a false flag or 2 could really get shite boiling
it's more of a hypothetical threat, but it can easily be used to manufacture some real "shite just got real" scenarios
this somewhat keeps Russia neutered, but a false flag or 2 could really get shite boiling
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
so like your average American thinks of this conflict and goes "well we just need a non-dictator to win and with US support, they'll develop institutions and create a better society for all" but in reality it's more "they will consolidate power and develop institutions and stability so that they can more easily exterminate all opposition and exact revenge for previous oppression"
Yeah, it's realpolitik vs naivete.
And the reason we think of WW2 as being this great win for the whole "everyone can live in harmony" is because we don't actually know much about what happened other than "Marshall Plan, we gave everyone money and they stopped hating each other". A better look is how Europe re-drew borders after the war and FORCABLY MOVED PEOPLE TO THEIR ETHNIC SIDE OF THE BORDER. A great example of this is the historical German city of Stettin, now Szczecin. In 1945 when the Polish/German border was drawn, Stettin was on the Polish side, even though it was entirely ethnically German. The soviets took all the Germans on the Polish side of the border and "ethnically cleansed" Poland of Germans. Then moved Poles into the old German areas.
This happened on many borders.
This is why I've been saying that multiculturalism is not a natural state for any nation. It is always a historical transition period between one of two stable outcomes: Balkanization or absorption of weaker cultures into a stronger one. Either way is the eventual end of multiculturalism.
Posted on 4/5/17 at 11:29 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS because it wants Al-Saad gone on religious grounds (Saudi Arabia is sunni) and to weaken Iran. Same for Qatar
I dont think religion is a big factor. I think the gas money is the fuel driving this push for war. Saudi gets to sit back and let the US and Europe fight its war for them. IMO The US, the exit countries in Europe and Russia should put an end to Saudi and its influence and if it hair-lips the German Chancellor so be it.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News