Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 296
  1. #41
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Xercies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,274
    You know i love armchair moralists that go oh the rebels are doing bad stuff to if you lived under a dictarship and had a gun and some of your family was killed or something you would also probably kill the opposition in horrible ways.

    Looks like Assad saw about the red line crossed it and said to America so what you going to do now?

  2. #42
    Activated Node
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel View Post

    Seriously, what the fuck is the world waiting for?!
    For the west there is no winning scenario at the moment. Invade with ground troups? Disaster. Limited air support? Assad has the latest Russian AA and even if it works the strongest rebels are the fundamentalists. Assassinate Assad? Even if that worked (Castro says hi) it would only lead to more chaos, again with the fundamentalists likely winning in the end.

  3. #43
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    You know i love armchair moralists that go oh the rebels are doing bad stuff to if you lived under a dictarship and had a gun and some of your family was killed or something you would also probably kill the opposition in horrible ways.

    Looks like Assad saw about the red line crossed it and said to America so what you going to do now?
    Good old Qisas at play here.

    Welcome to the distant future. the year, 2000.

    i am not trying to defend assad, use of chemical weapons should not be overlooked, but if the so called rebels, who for the most part are actually not rebels at all but mere terrorists, win this war, the syrian people are down for a far worse situation.

    Look at iraq. so lovely there at this time of year.

  4. #44
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Xercies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,274
    Yeah look at Iraq building itself up a really people having freedoms to do stuff its not the best place there are car bombs and shit but its a lot I think better then what they had.

    Also only Assad calls them terrorists and I'm not going to believe what he says.

  5. #45
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    Yeah look at Iraq building itself up a really people having freedoms to do stuff its not the best place there are car bombs and shit but its a lot I think better then what they had.

    Also only Assad calls them terrorists and I'm not going to believe what he says.
    No, the rebels call themselves 'jihadists', but it's about as bad. They've already started summarily executing people for maligning their prophet and shooting their own allies for being 'too secular'. In which way is this better for the average syrian person?

    Really, the west had its chance to go in, and that was years ago. Instead, it prevaricated, and in lieu of our support, the rebels found another source with a much more hands-on agenda. Now it's just a fight between bad and worse, and I'm not sure who's who.

  6. #46
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    Yeah look at Iraq building itself up a really people having freedoms to do stuff its not the best place there are car bombs and shit but its a lot I think better then what they had.
    Like, power.

    And three million more citizens.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  7. #47
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    No, the rebels call themselves 'jihadists', but it's about as bad. They've already started summarily executing people for maligning their prophet and shooting their own allies for being 'too secular'. In which way is this better for the average syrian person?
    This is pretty much why I don't really know what to think about the Syrian War. Both sides are horrible, I don't want either side to claim victory. I'd sympathise with the rebels but they're becoming religious zealots. There can be no freedom in a theocracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Serenegoose View Post
    Really, the west had its chance to go in, and that was years ago. Instead, it prevaricated, and in lieu of our support, the rebels found another source with a much more hands-on agenda. Now it's just a fight between bad and worse, and I'm not sure who's who.
    I'd agree with that, but ever since Afghanistan and Iraq the general population seem to have an aversion to the west "interfering" in the affairs of the Middle East, even in a situation like this where we have a clear need for intervention. I don't know if people want to become embroiled in another military action, and by this point nothing short of force will bring an end to open warfare. Diplomacy is meaningless without an army to back it up.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  8. #48
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus squirrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Xercies View Post
    You know i love armchair moralists that go oh the rebels are doing bad stuff to if you lived under a dictarship and had a gun and some of your family was killed or something you would also probably kill the opposition in horrible ways.
    We pursue for justice for a very rational reason. We cannot tell what kinda person one is before he really show his true color. But once a faction commits war crime, we know for sure that this faction, if be put on power, will be 1) tyrant to its own subjects 2) terrorist regime which will threaten other nations. Even Syrian war is a civil war, foreign powers can step in to stop both factions from persecuting one another. It's the 21st century. We do not need to guarantee that victor will become the new regime.

    That's why I suggest, disarm both sides. Assad's regime needs to be overthrown, but that doesn't mean we should put the rebels on the throne. Balkan, mainly Yugoslavia in the last few decades, has set a very successful precedence (it was very bloody, I regret to say, but people who survive the disaster need to live on). No doubt it is in a developed region, compared to relatively less developed Middle East. Yet with foreign policing, this is doable.

  9. #49
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus coldvvvave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
    That's why I suggest, disarm both sides.
    Disarm them how exactly? Both sides rely heavily on irregular forces and often blend in with civilian population. Let me remind you that a US-led coalition is still fighting against similar irregular forces, they wish they knew how to disarm them and they'd be grateful to you if you let them know.

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
    Assad's regime needs to be overthrown, but that doesn't mean we should put the rebels on the throne.
    But you will de facto put them on the throne. SNC is already recognised and backed by major regional powers. I expect some infighting among them though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake Sigar View Post
    You are an enemy of gaming.

  10. #50
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel View Post
    Seriously, what the fuck is the world waiting for?!
    To do what? Occupy the entire country? Have the Chinese take control of the east, the Russians the south, the Europeans the North and the Africans the west in a sort of post-WW2 German-style partitioned pacification? Israel in Damascus and Iran in Aleppo? Nobody wants that. As tragic as it is for the people of Syria, I doubt many people and states are jumping to get involved in that conflict.

    If anything, I'd expect other Muslim countries to take the initiative here. Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan have large armies. Saudi Arabia has modern (American) weaponry, and for some reason the United Arab Emirates also spends boatloads of money on its military. They've decried the 'crusading' European and American involvement in the region for years, now, and while its a stupid term to use, the criticism is definitely not unfounded. The UN could even send a few peacekeepers from a mostly disinterested third party, sub-Saharan Africa perhaps, to protect the countries minorities.

    But sending European men and women into Syria? No thanks.
    Last edited by Tritagonist; 23-08-2013 at 10:16 AM.
    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  11. #51
    Network Hub
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    200
    I recently stumbled upon this theory, which, well, sounds pretty reasonable:

    the area is rich in natural gas, more so, qatar is super rich in natural gas. qatar needs to transfer said gas to europe (http://www.thenational.ae/business/e...line-to-turkey) which has an increasing demand for it (http://www.worldenergy.org/documents...rs/P000963.pdf). the only way to do so in large scale and efficiently is via syria on a landline and via egypt through its ports. russia is the leading suppliers of natural gas to the world. russia would like to keep it this way. the only thing that keeps qatar from having a direct land line to europe is assad, which is in alliance with iran and russia who both rather not see qatar gain advantage over them in that area. (they could detour through iraq, which is highly unstable and may result in what we saw in egypt where their gas pipes were the first thing to explode as the rebellion started and its also pretty unlikely because saudi arabia doesn't favour qatar and wont allow it).

    Hence why qatar is the biggest provider of funds, weapons and man power in the form of mercenaries to the syrian "rebels" and why russia has strong interest in keeping assad in the throne.

  12. #52
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,559
    The Independent reports:

    Syria: air attacks loom as Britain and US pledge to use force within two weeks
    Chemical weapons atrocity in Damascus marks a turning point for Obama, Cameron and Hollande

    Oliver Wright Sunday, 25 August 2013

    Western countries, including Britain, are planning to take unilateral military action against the Assad regime within two weeks in retaliation for its alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians in Syria.

    David Cameron discussed launching missile strikes against key regime targets during a 40-minute telephone call with President Barack Obama on Saturday night and also with the French President François Hollande on Sunday. While Downing Street said Western powers had not ruled out seeking UN endorsement for military action they added that they were also prepared to unilaterally.

    “We cannot in the 21st century allow the idea that chemical weapons can be used with impunity and there are no consequences,” the Foreign Secretary William Hague said. A Downing Street source added: “We intend to show that an attack of this nature will not pass without a serious response.”

    Mr Cameron is expected to cut short his holiday in Cornwall and return to London to chair a meeting of the Government’s National Security Council tomorrow. Downing Street said that the Prime Minister was also considering the recall of Parliament but added that it “all depends upon the timing”. Labour said it would expect” a recall “in advance of any decision being made”.

    (...)

    Asked about getting a UN mandate from military action they said: “We are not excluding the UN route and we will keep engaging with UN partners and working the diplomatic machine. But we do not want the regime or its allies to use the UN to drag this all out. An attack of this nature passes without a serious response.”

    They added that any attack would not be intended to sway the military balance between Assad forces and they Syrian opposition. “This is not about trying to shape the outcome of the Syrian conflict by military means. This is focused on the incident that happened on Wednesday.”

    Mr Cameron may hope that the limited nature of the planned response may help him avoid having to hold a pre-emptive vote on military action in Parliament where he could face strong opposition not just from Labour but also his own backbenches who are concerned about the UK being increasing dragged into yet another Middle Eastern conflict.

    A Downing Street spokesman said that Mr Cameron had “always been clear that MPs should have a chance to debate this type of issue” but he added: “He reserves the right for the Government to act and respond.”

    However Douglas Alexander MP, Labour’s shadow Foreign Secretary said: “If the Prime Minister is now considering military options involving UK personnel then of course I would expect him to seek a recall of Parliament and to come to the House of Commons.”
    I can see reasons to ignore the UN, but the British Parliament? It has long been standard practise in the United States to ignore Congress when it comes to war, but I had thought the British would be a bit more attached to their parliamentary history.
    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  13. #53
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    20
    Parliaments pander to the people, military leaders don't. The western world needs to step in and do something in Syria, congressional pandering be damned.

  14. #54
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Slev View Post
    Parliaments pander to the people, military leaders don't. The western world needs to step in and do something in Syria, congressional pandering be damned.
    But as others have pointed out, intervention brings its own problems. Everyone's happy to support the crusade when it's about retribution but nobody wants to deal with the aftermath.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  15. #55
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Slev View Post
    Parliaments pander to the people, military leaders don't. The western world needs to step in and do something in Syria, congressional pandering be damned.
    Military leaders don't pander? el-Sisi in Egypt has been doing just that for a year, now.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

  16. #56
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Tritagonist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Slev View Post
    Parliaments pander to the people, military leaders don't.
    Which is why one of the best things about modern Western political systems is that the parliament, being the representatives of the people, is, in theory at least, superior to the military. Besides, some of the more vocal opponents of immediate and large-scale American involvement in Syria are actually in the military.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slev View Post
    The western world needs to step in and do something in Syria, congressional pandering be damned.
    The only thing Western governments need to do is listen to, and follow the direction set by, the representatives of the people: in parliament and congress.

    But even if the dogs of war were set loose on Syria, then what? Stay another ten years like the Americans did in Iraq, which still suffers from near-daily bombings with dozens of casualties? Does anybody really want the Muslim thugs that make up the most fanatical (and militarily strong, see: 'US Syria intervention could help al Qaeda') parts of the rebellion in Syria to govern an ethnically and religiously divided society?

    Thankfully, it seems at least parts of the American government have learned from the anarchy in Iraq that it's not such a great thing to destroy a state and its tools for governing, as reported earlier this year: 'US Policy in Syria to ‘Maintain Functions of the State’?'
    "He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
    the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~
    Luke 4:18

  17. #57
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus soldant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    4,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Tritagonist View Post
    The only thing Western governments need to do is listen to, and follow the direction set by, the representatives of the people: in parliament and congress.
    Those representatives, and sometimes the people, aren't always the best people to listen to. That approach assumes that the people know what's best, and frequently as a group we don't. People are easily stirred into self-righteous action - look at Kony 2012 and the demand for a crusade to stop him (which fell apart because hey, slacktivism is easier than doing stuff) which was triggered by an emotional nuke of a video.

    The reaction to Syria from the public is "Stop the killing!" (for the most part) which could lead to the scenario you mention quite rightly - another bloody conflict where neither side is worth supporting. The state is apparently employing chemical weapons, and the rebels are becoming increasingly sectarian and theocratic. Splash dying kids on screen though and you'll enkindle fervor for war.

    Sometimes the populous don't know best.
    Nalano's Law - As an online gaming discussion regarding restrictions grows longer, the probability of a post likening the topic to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea approaches one.
    Soldant's Law - A person will happily suspend their moral values if they can express moral outrage by doing so.

  18. #58
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by Nalano View Post
    Military leaders don't pander? el-Sisi in Egypt has been doing just that for a year, now.
    He has been following Mubarak's agenda of clamping down on Islamist organizations especially after Morsi's extra-constitutional shenanigans. It's the army that is set to lose if a civilian government democratically elected or not gets too powerful. Now that Morsi's been shown the door the army is gonna try propping up a dummy.

  19. #59
    Lesser Hivemind Node
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    868
    As for chemical weapons, I'd say it's the rebels that likely to be using them than the Assad regime. Assad wouldn't really want to give the world a casus belli to make war with him.

  20. #60
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus Nalano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NY f'n C
    Posts
    9,917
    Quote Originally Posted by soldant View Post
    The reaction to Syria from the public is "Stop the killing!" (for the most part) which could lead to the scenario you mention quite rightly - another bloody conflict where neither side is worth supporting. The state is apparently employing chemical weapons, and the rebels are becoming increasingly sectarian and theocratic. Splash dying kids on screen though and you'll enkindle fervor for war.
    If there was a time, that time has passed.

    We actually have several examples of various ways secular dictators and theocratic guerrilla fighters can end up in the Middle East:

    There's Iraq, where we intervened and blew the dictatorship out of the water, forgot to devise an exit strategy, watched as the theocratic guerrilla fighters started genociding one another amid the power vacuum, and then propped up the losing side as the new government. Ultimately, the civil war eventually petered itself out because, through constant bloodletting, mixed communities largely ceased to exist.

    There's Afghanistan, where we intervened and bombed a lot of theocratic guerrilla fighters, set up a secular dictatorship - or, if you prefer, a "democracy" where the guy most friendly to America won - forgot to devise an exit strategy, and watched as that secular dictatorship got corrupted by the theocratic guerrilla fighters quicker than you can watch cargo pallets of cash disappear from the airport.

    There's Egypt, where we pointedly didn't intervene on the hopes that the theocratic fighters wouldn't fight the secular dictatorship that we'd been propping up for the last fifty years, and were rewarded with a regime a year later that looked a lot like a theocratic dictatorship, which the very same generals from the previous secular dictatorship shut down right quick while we turn a blind eye.

    There's Libya, where we intervened and bombed the military forces of the secular dictatorship and tried to supply the least theocratic of the guerrilla fighters on the hopes that they wouldn't then turn around and attack us if not simply head straight into a civil war amid the power vacuum, and watched a couple years later when they turned around and attacked us. This is probably the closest we have to a success story right now.

    So, there's Syria, where a secular dictatorship is fighting a bunch of theocratic guerrilla fighters, where Russia wants the dictator to win because he's Russia's only friend in the region and America wanted the guerrillas to win a year ago before they got too radicalized by arms and fighters from your usual crew of theocratic dictatorships in the area.
    Nalano H. Wildmoon
    Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
    Attorney at Lawl
    "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •