Revolution in the middle east Page 83

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • Metalfish 10 Sep 2013 18:22:48 8,818 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Are Scotsmen allowed to read it?
  • L0cky 10 Sep 2013 18:32:29 1,519 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Obama now going for the Russia backed accidental John Kerry diplomatic solution, no doubt from the media being all over that car crash.

    There's so many layers of irony I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry, I just hope it pulls through.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-lobbies-dubious-lawmakers-and-a-war-weary-public-on-syria-readying-tuesday-night-speech/2013/09/09/85676c70-19b0-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html
  • Deleted user 10 September 2013 18:55:45
    My consideration isn't for America but rather for the preservation of life and tackling the problem of radical Islam.
    Are you seriously trying to imply that American military strikes against a secular regime in West Asia will facilitate 'preservation of life and tackling the problem of radical Islam'?

    Very funny.

    The Christians in Syria beg to differ.
  • Segnit 10 Sep 2013 19:06:46 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mao was secular. Secular is a broad spectrum. The type of seculars we should be interested in is the non-murderous type.

    Nobody is suggesting that the rebels killed the majority of the 100k dead or even half. The seculars started the killing of demonstrators.

    Being secular is not a trump card.
  • Psiloc 10 Sep 2013 19:20:49 1,446 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Maybe your mistake was assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant.

    EDIT: @Segnit

    Edited by Psiloc at 19:21:46 10-09-2013
  • DigitalDelay 10 Sep 2013 19:25:27 216 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    My problem with intervention is that before this latest use of chem weapons, the only ideas the US, UK etc seemed to be pushing to the UN was to "Arm the rebels! Up the violence!". It's this non constructive hunger for violence that has got us to where we are today.

    A revolution that's got so dirty, the words Geneva convention and the likes count for little on the battlefield. Has anyone told the rebel groups for instance that you shouldn't really torture and execute captured soldiers? I don't see them playing by these international laws we value so much.

    If we want to talk about preserving life and such, then surely the people of Syria need some kind of international peace keeping force until the world can take care of who-did-what-where?
  • Segnit 10 Sep 2013 19:27:00 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Psiloc I hold no such opinion. Why would you say that?
  • Psiloc 10 Sep 2013 19:51:30 1,446 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @Segnit You said unless you're the Dalai Lama of pacifists you are an ignorant pseudo-pacifist.

    You also said in your article that anybody who disagrees with military intervention might as well call themselves a pacifist, like its a massive social taboo or something. Based on these criteria it's impossible to disagree and not be 'ignorant'.
  • Segnit 10 Sep 2013 20:12:55 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Dalai Lama is only one example of a real pacifist. You can't deny the guy is on a whole level on his own.

    In my article I said those "against any intervention in any country for any reason". I know what you mean but this is the defacto definition of a pacifist.

    That line was designed to get those on the fence to either commit to pacifism or not. And when committed to that cause then to stay committed to that cause rather than only when it serves them. Not everyone fits that profile, but whoever does then obviously I cannot extend kind words.

    "Now I'm a pacifist and now I'm not, magic."
  • CaptainKerbal 10 Sep 2013 20:25:09 365 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Latest development is stalling tactic only, a day or so ago Assad apparently had no chemical weapons. Appeasement only makes a situation worse. Delaying only means the inevitable will cost more lives.
  • L0cky 10 Sep 2013 20:42:10 1,519 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Segnit wrote:
    That line was designed to get those on the fence to either commit to pacifism or not. And when committed to that cause then to stay committed to that cause rather than only when it serves them. Not everyone fits that profile, but whoever does then obviously I cannot extend kind words.

    "Now I'm a pacifist and now I'm not, magic."
    Because people can't decide what they think is right depending on the circumstances. That would be impossible.
  • Segnit 10 Sep 2013 20:45:10 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @L0cky pacifism is an ideal, not a case by case decision.

    If you're pacifist on a case by case basis then you're not a pacifist according to the definition of the word.

    Edit: Hence my "real pacifist" remark earlier.

    Edited by Segnit at 20:47:07 10-09-2013
  • L0cky 10 Sep 2013 20:48:11 1,519 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    So you're actually saying some people say they're something, when they're not really; and you'd like people to understand the dictionary definition a bit more?

    It seems a bit pedantic when you look at it like that.
  • Deleted user 10 September 2013 20:56:39
    CaptainKerbal wrote:
    Latest development is stalling tactic only, a day or so ago Assad apparently had no chemical weapons. Appeasement only makes a situation worse. Delaying only means the inevitable will cost more lives.
    That is one thing i am surprised that the news outlets havn't picked up on. Surely that Syria want to 'work' with russia in getting rid of chemical weapons, proves, indirectly, that both Russia and Syria knew they had chemical weapons, and importantly used them. Its an admission.

    To be honest theres so much bullshit on obama position and what the whole incident 'does' to him 'politically' it misses the whole point. Fuck if russia took the iniatiive on this, just be a fucking man, if the offer is valid, accept it. People will think better of it and him, rather than posturing over it.

    Edited by joelstinton at 20:57:52 10-09-2013

    Edited by joelstinton at 20:58:32 10-09-2013
  • fletch7100 10 Sep 2013 21:24:49 7,213 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @joelstinton

    It wasn't a secret that Syria had chemical weapons. Old news that both West and East were worried about Syrias chemical weapons falling into the hands of the rebels and worse the extremist groups that follow Al Qaeda ideals. You know the groups that are meant to be our enemies but we will help them in this war same as in Libya.

    Will the West allow the Russians to be leading the initiative in this process. Could go on for months Russia make their proposal to UN, then US,UK and France veto it and make a counter proposal Russia, China veto that. You never know everyone may put Their rivalries aside and work together on this, unlikely I know
  • WoodenSpoon 10 Sep 2013 21:50:37 12,285 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I reckon there's a reasonable chance of this "working". The only reason Obama started banging the war drum is because his credibility was at stake. Now he has an opportunity to back off without looking weak.

    No one wants to be involved in escalating the war in Syria. Since the videos of the chemical attack emerged the whole saga has been a total farce.
  • Bremenacht 10 Sep 2013 22:08:10 17,778 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Agree with the that.

    I wonder who the inspectors would be though? Russians? It would make it much easier for the Russians to claim Assad's forces had no hand in future attacks, and (whoever the inspectors were) much harder for the US to directly attack Syrian targets, for fear of killing them.

    Of course, the prolonged conventional warfare will drag on longer and kill even more people.
  • Pynchon 10 Sep 2013 22:44:30 114 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Isn't the real problem that the 'West' has set itself up as world policemen, but frankly the current and historical foreign policies of the countries that do so are soaked in blood and the very crimes they purport to want to prevent?

    If there was a real intent to make the world a better place they'd shut down all arms sales outside their own borders for a start.
  • QotSAfan 10 Sep 2013 22:54:28 1,687 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    @Pynchon It's not about policing the world or noble ideals but how much power and riches can be gained from this scenario.
  • Pynchon 10 Sep 2013 23:03:36 114 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    @QotSAfan I rather suspect it's got to the point of securing resources to keep the economic machine going as long as possible, and delaying the realisation we live on a planet that's a closed system and there's quite a lot of us, and the standard of living we all enjoy is something millions in the 'developing world' would like too.

    And that's really not sustainable, so hey, keep the voters happy and ignorant that time is really running out on their lifestyle for as long as possible.
  • L0cky 10 Sep 2013 23:58:12 1,519 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Pynchon wrote:
    @QotSAfan I rather suspect it's got to the point of securing resources to keep the economic machine going as long as possible, and delaying the realisation we live on a planet that's a closed system and there's quite a lot of us, and the standard of living we all enjoy is something millions in the 'developing world' would like too.

    And that's really not sustainable, so hey, keep the voters happy and ignorant that time is really running out on their lifestyle for as long as possible.
    Altruistic greed is an oxymoron.
  • Pynchon 11 Sep 2013 00:12:33 114 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    L0cky wrote:
    Pynchon wrote:
    @QotSAfan I rather suspect it's got to the point of securing resources to keep the economic machine going as long as possible, and delaying the realisation we live on a planet that's a closed system and there's quite a lot of us, and the standard of living we all enjoy is something millions in the 'developing world' would like too.

    And that's really not sustainable, so hey, keep the voters happy and ignorant that time is really running out on their lifestyle for as long as possible.
    Altruistic greed is an oxymoron.
    Well, quite.
  • Pynchon 11 Sep 2013 00:18:11 114 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    @L0cky Let them eat video games
  • Segnit 11 Sep 2013 06:56:19 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It is the genuine threat of force which is spurring all this diplomatic activity. I hope Presidents Obama and Hollande do not back down. Obama needs to continue to make the case for intervention to congress. The longer he lobbies the likelier it is that he will get the AUMF.
  • Deleted user 11 September 2013 08:56:54
    Mao was secular.
    And China benefited.

    Despite the wild vicissitudes of Mao's rule, China achieved an impressive annual growth rate of 4.4% between 1950 and 1980, more than quadrupling the country's GDP and more than doubling per capita GDP. This compared favourably with India, which only managed to increase its GDP by less than three times during the same period and its per capita GDP by around 50 per cent. China's social performance was even more impressive. Between 1950 and 1980, it enhanced its Human Development Index... by three and a half times (in contrast to India's increase of two and three-quarter times), as a result of placing a huge emphasis on education, tackling illiteracy, promoting equality... and improving health care. (Martin Jacques, When China Rules The World, page 115).

    (The GDP calculation might not be right, since 1.044 to the power of 30 is roughly 3.639. Still that's a superior performance to India's.)
    However, this thread is about the Middle East and not the Middle Kingdom.


    The type of seculars we should be interested in is the non-murderous type.
    In West Asia, the murderous jihadists have made non-violent secularists an endangered, if not an extinct, species. To put it bluntly, you usually have to choose between violent secular regimes and violent Islamic extremists in the region.


    Nobody is suggesting that the rebels killed the majority of the 100k dead or even half.
    Consider the following:

    Assad backers reportedly make up 43 percent of dead in Syria

    According to the new statistics, which the Syrian Observatory passed to McClatchy by phone, at least 96,431 people have lost their lives in the more than two years of violence that’s wracked Syria.

    Of those, Syrian soldiers and members of the government’s security forces account for 24,617, while members of pro-government militias make up 17,031. Taken together, those deaths account for 43.2 percent of the total recorded.

    Civilian noncombatants are the next largest group of the dead – 35,479, or 36.8 percent of the total, according to the human rights group.

    Deaths among anti-Assad fighters total 16,699, or 17.3 percent, according to the new numbers. Of those, 12,615 were Syrian civilians who’d picked up arms against the regime, 1,965 were rebel fighters who’d defected from the Syrian military and 2,119 were foreigners who were killed fighting on the Syrian rebels’ behalf.
    18,000 rebels, 40,000 soldiers, militiamen killed in Syrian conflict

    Edited by EndlessSolitude at 09:10:11 11-09-2013

    Edited by EndlessSolitude at 09:11:46 11-09-2013
  • Segnit 11 Sep 2013 09:27:31 206 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @EndlessSolitude leaving aside the fact that nothing you said contradicts or disagrees with anything I said (the insight is appreciated); backing the murderous regime in this case translates to backing:
    - A family dynasty (which we all know will come to an end some day)
    - Dictatorial regime
    - That's Murderous
    - Known source of instability in the region. Only state backing Hezbollah.

    Backing the rebels will IN THE WORST CASE translate to:
    - A potential new dynasty
    - A potential dictator
    - Potentially violent, coercive, oppressive regime.
    - Potentially a Sunni regime in line with the Arab League (A.K.A all its neighbors)

    You may make the argument "the devil we know rather than the one we don't". But at 100k+ deaths; a hub for Hezbollah rockets; stockpile of chemical weapons and all the mentioned reasons above, it's high time we remove from power those who give secular a bad name.

    At what point will you say "You know what the devil we know is no longer tenable?"
  • Deleted user 11 September 2013 10:12:02
    nothing you said contradicts or disagrees with anything I said
    It should be obvious that if the rebels were responsible for even a quarter of the civilian deaths, (and there is little reason to imagine that they weren't given their notorious behaviour), then they would be responsible for the majority of the deaths in Syria, (43,000 + (0.25 * 35479) = 51,870 > (0.5 * 100,000)).


    Only state backing Hezbollah.
    I presume you mean only Arab state backing Hizbollah, since Iran also backs the Shi'ite Lebanese resistance movement. However, one could argue that far from being a cause of instability, Hizbollah is what prevents a Sunni-Christian conflict in Lebanon, by holding the balance. Thus, Syria, by backing Hizbollah, might actually help make the region more stable.

    [Of course, many in Israel would love to be rid of those pesky Shi'ite rebels, and their Syrian and Iranian backers... but I suspect that the wiser heads in Tel Aviv realize that if the Shi'ites were gone, the Sunnis would turn whole-heartedly against the Jews. Israel's interest is to keep the Sunnis and Shi'ites at each other's throats, and therefore away from its own. Fortunately, the Sunnis and Shi'ites are quite capable of doing this themselves, so the Israelis need only watch.. and clap. With enemies like these, who needs friends?]


    it's high time we remove from power those who give secular a bad name.

    It's for the Syrians to decide whether their government 'gives secular a bad name' and it is for them to remove it if they so wish. For my part, judging by the opponents of the Syrian regime, it seems quite clear that the Damascus regime is more worthy of support than the alternatives.

    The worst (and frankly, quite likely) case with the Sunni jihadists is a genocide akin to what we've seen in Iraq, with the unending violence targeting the Christian and Shi'ite communities there.


    At what point will you say "You know what the devil we know is no longer tenable?"
    When there's a better alternative.

    Edited by EndlessSolitude at 10:13:20 11-09-2013
  • RedSparrows 11 Sep 2013 10:36:47 22,274 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    'China benefitted'

    Probably.

    But, uh

    collectivisation and mass murder, in effect, again.

    Anyway.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 10:37:25 11-09-2013
  • Psiloc 11 Sep 2013 10:37:57 1,446 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Segnit wrote:
    Dalai Lama is only one example of a real pacifist. You can't deny the guy is on a whole level on his own.

    In my article I said those "against any intervention in any country for any reason". I know what you mean but this is the defacto definition of a pacifist.

    That line was designed to get those on the fence to either commit to pacifism or not. And when committed to that cause then to stay committed to that cause rather than only when it serves them. Not everyone fits that profile, but whoever does then obviously I cannot extend kind words.

    "Now I'm a pacifist and now I'm not, magic."
    I think it's time to agree to disagree, you see things far too black and white for my taste. I prefer to think there are more kinds of people in the world than belligerents, sham pacifists and Buddhist monks.
  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply