If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[Pangur Bán]

Just because someone has lied in the past does not mean they always lie.

What motives does the West have to lie?

Ask a better question, what reason and when does a political / military administration have to tell the truth when doing otherwise would suit its interests?

The only answer of course is that it could get caught. Could it really get caught telling 'lies' if it were doing so about this sort of thing? What is 'truth' anyway? Am I really 'lying' if I just repeat certain things underlings give me to help me in my goals? Are they really lying if they massage some interpretations of 'facts' to suit my goals? Surely 'lying' is an irrelevant concept so long as one has deniability?

 

[NovaKart]

All the bs exception & excuse making aside, the 'Obama administration' is not being accused of hypocrisy because it used chemical weapons, but because it is claiming it wants to stop a dangerous international precedent on chemical weapon use escaping punishment. Even an Assad regime openly wiping out rebel-held cities with chemical weapons would not in fact constitute such a precedent. 'Chemical weapons' is just the latest wooly version of 'weapons of mass destruction', a moralizing, fear-drenched excuse (itself a successor to the 'red menace' type) fed to the US and allied populations to get them to not vigorously oppose, even if they don't actively consent to, deadly political opportunism.

So because of American complicity in Saddam's use of nerve gas in Halabja and the Iran-Iraq war, this means that Obama cannot decide to set his own precedent more than 20 years later? That's some strange logic. Perhaps no one should object to the use of nuclear weapons because there's a precedent for that. Perhaps no one should object to slavery or apartheid because that was tolerated. Since then, Ali Hassan al Majid has been executed for orchestrating the Halabja massacre as well as other actions taking in Anfal and Saddam has as well, although I believe under different charges. The Obama administration can set its own standards on why chemical attacks should not be tolerated and shouldn't be held to task over the actions of the Reagan or Bush administrations.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But why did Assad so viciously attack the peaceful protests of two years ago?

Because he's a bastard.

But he's not a jihadi.

I mostly agree with this but it should be noted that the assorted rebels/militias were making minor headway into the Alawite coastal region.

If you root for Assad you are rooting for a killer and his Russian pals. If you root for the opposition you are rooting for jihadis and their Gulf sheikh pals. There is no reason to "support" anyone imo, especially as a socialist. Imperialism is rampant on both sides.

As a sidebar, Assad has tremendous strategic value to Russia. It's not just about face saving, a few arms deals, and a Mediterranean port. Without Assad, Qatar is likely to build a trans-Middle East pipeline that undercuts Russia's natural gas exports.

Just because an outcome benefits an imperialist doesn't mean that supporting the outcome is supporting imperialism. Yeah, Russia has stuff at stake in this and is supporting Assad for their own benefit. But that doesn't mean that we should not support Assad's victory because we would be inadvertently supporting imperialism.

The much larger danger is not Russian imperialism, but American imperialism. Assad is pro-Iran, and both are anti-American. An anti-imperial bloc is still useful in the global struggle. That Russia still gets some table scraps is regrettable, but forgivable in the meanwhile.

Also, I'm linking this article because it is crazy: https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/putin-saudi-arabia/bb14055ed8698bd6312bbe4f0823f1147cf75c4b/

Like how Jim Larkin supported the Allies against the Central Powers, right?

More like how western communist parties supported the Allied cause against Nazi Germany. An Al-Nursa victory would be disastrous for the West. I have no qualms about supporting a bastard like Assad while his enemies are people like that.

 

[Pangur Bán]

So because of American complicity in Saddam's use of nerve gas in Halabja and the Iran-Iraq war, this means that Obama cannot decide to set his own precedent more than 20 years later? That's some strange logic. Perhaps no one should object to the use of nuclear weapons because there's a precedent for that. Perhaps no one should object to slavery or apartheid because that was tolerated. Since then, Ali Hassan al Majid has been executed for orchestrating the Halabja massacre as well as other actions taking in Anfal and Saddam has as well, although I believe under different charges. The Obama administration can set its own standards on why chemical attacks should not be tolerated and shouldn't be held to task over the actions of the Reagan or Bush administrations.

Obama can 'set his own precedent' if he wants. The USA is the most powerful country in the world and doesn't need to follow any 'logic'. If it wants to attack an enemy and claim it is doing so to prevent a precedent it itself has already more than fully established, it can do so and probably get many others to 'agree' with it. Folks like you will take its 'logic' seriously, just don't expect that others will. In any case, few outside America think the outcome of the US's quadrennial Punch and Judy show has a bearing on its foreign policy, and really they have no reason to.

 

[NovaKart]

Obama can 'set his own precedent' if he wants. The USA is the most powerful country in the world and doesn't need to follow any 'logic'. If it wants to attack an enemy and claim it is doing so to prevent a precedent it itself has already more than fully established, it can do so and probably get many others to 'agree' with it. Folks like you will take its 'logic' seriously, just don't expect that others will. In any case, few outside America think the outcome of the US's quadrennial Punch and Judy show has a bearing on its foreign policy, and really they have no reason to.

If Obama and the US don't need to follow any logic then your attempts at finding fault in the logic is rather pointless then isn't it?

 

[Pangur Bán]

If Obama and the US don't need to follow any logic then your attempts at finding fault in the logic is rather pointless then isn't it?

No more pointless than the attempts of you or anyone else to legitimize them. If you can understand how power works, you may not have the ability to alter its course, but at least you're not rubber stamping its deeds or blindly becoming one, if a only an infinitesimally unimportant one, of its instruments. Understanding of course has intrinsic worth.

 

[classical_hero]

This picture says it all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, not really. Al Qaeda is more of a loose franchise than an actual organisation, especially given that the US has pretty much destroyed the closest thing they had to a headquarters, and local "franchisees" tend to be motivated by essentially local concerns, their association with Al Qaeda is more about access to expertise and to a lesser extent materials and personnel, and to a ready-made social and political ideology. Saying that the Al-Nusra Front "flew planes into [America's] buildings" is a bit like saying that Castro invaded Poland.

I mean, there's a real irony to it, that's true enough, but there are complexities which pithy one-liners don't really admit.

 

[NovaKart]

No more pointless than the attempts of you or anyone else to legitimize them. If you can understand how power works, you may not have the ability to alter its course, but at least you're not rubber stamping its deeds or blindly becoming one, if a only an infinitesimally unimportant one, of its instruments. Understanding of course has intrinsic worth.

I'm not calling for everyone to rubberstamp US foreign policy or to not question intelligence or anything like that. I'm pointing out that your criticizing the Obama administration over policy from the 1980s is not relevant. This is really the gist of what I brought up earlier, it's not hypocritical for the US to take a stance against chemical weapons regardless of what Reagan or Kissinger did in the 80s with Saddam.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'm not calling for everyone to rubberstamp US foreign policy or to not question intelligence or anything like that. I'm pointing out that your criticizing the Obama administration over policy from the 1980s is not relevant. This is really the gist of what I brought up earlier, it's not hypocritical for the US to take a stance against chemical weapons regardless of what Reagan or Kissinger did in the 80s with Saddam.

Going round in circles. You've already said this and I've already responded:

... the 'Obama administration' is not being accused of hypocrisy because it used chemical weapons, but because it is claiming it wants to stop a dangerous international precedent on chemical weapon use escaping punishment. Even an Assad regime openly wiping out rebel-held cities with chemical weapons would not in fact constitute such a precedent. 'Chemical weapons' is just the latest wooly version of 'weapons of mass destruction', a moralizing, fear-drenched excuse (itself a successor to the 'red menace' type) fed to the US and allied populations to get them to not vigorously oppose, even if they don't actively consent to, deadly political opportunism.

The whole 'most recent president is different' stuff is done for every administration, and in 25 years time people will be saying the latest tweedle dum is an exception to all his predecessors for trying to get some war similar to this one while admitting all the naughty stuff from the Bush and Obama years (you'll probably be there to see it for yourself, remember old Pangur Bán when you do ).

 

[NovaKart]

So basically some argument that the US is some faceless evil empire that invades countries because it's just evil and to provide hipsters with something to complain about while consuming its products.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So basically some argument that the US is some faceless evil empire that invades countries because it's just evil and to provide hipsters with something to complain about while consuming its products.

Speaking as an American, I can say that Democrat or Republican, this nation's foreign policy has been geared to war and production and preparation for war -- and they use any justification to do so.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I don't know. What reasons did the US have to lie about Iraq?

The US miscalculated the effects of intervention in Iraq. You understand the situation is quite different though right?

The American public has no stomach for war and the US itself cannot afford to be tied up in the Middle East any longer especially with new developments in Asia and Eastern Europe.

Speaking as an American, I can say that Democrat or Republican, this nation's foreign policy has been geared to war and production and preparation for war -- and they use any justification to do so.

So you're saying the US it not getting involved in conflicts as part of its strategy to maintain power but instead to fuel the military-industrial complex or some hippie thing like that?

You know wars only destroy right?

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Just because someone has lied in the past does not mean they always lie.

What motives does the West have to lie?

Not many.

The cost of an intervention for the West would be so much higher than anything gained from it.

Unfortunately, the Americans and some of its Europeans allies are often caught with dishonest deeds. Let's just list some examples off the top of my head:

1. War in Afghanstan -> How was Taliban even related to Al Qaeda?

2. War in Iraq -> Where is the WMD?

3. No flyzone in Libya -> Is that not outright undeclared war?

4. Funding terrorists to topple hostile regimes while trying hard to omit the terrorist designation -> Syria

And of course, we aren't even getting into how they were spying on other countries and repeatedly lying about the extent of the issue.

This is not to say Americans and its European satellites ALWAYS lie, but it is reasonable to consider them untrustworthy.

What's been occurring in the Middle East are proxy wars with the objective of either securing lucrative contracts on natural resources, extending American influence, or weakening rival powers. In the case of Syria, it is not a resource-rich country, but it has a significant strategic value to Russia and Iran.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So you're saying the US it not getting involved in conflicts as part of its strategy to maintain power but instead to fuel the military-industrial complex or some hippie thing like that?

You know wars only destroy right?

Not a hippie thing at all. Stop name calling.

Single largest budget item for US = Military spending. We already agree the US sells more arms abroad than anyone else.

Wars destroy lives and equipment. Equipment means military contracts. You do know that the US military BUYS its ordnance, right? Do you know that most of the military contracts are multinational corporations, right? You do know that these are NOT the largest source of employment, right? (Small businesses are.)

So, who gains from a US policy geared for war and war production?

And, btw, Obama himself said he is going to respond militarily, regardless of the overwhelming US popular opposition to it.

So, he don't give a damn about whether Americans can stomach anything. He knows which side his bread is buttered.

Who really


Sent via mobile.

 

[NovaKart]

Speaking as an American, I can say that Democrat or Republican, this nation's foreign policy has been geared to war and production and preparation for war -- and they use any justification to do so.

Sent via mobile.

I hear you and if you really feel that way, more power to you, but before you start beating on that tambourine you might want to consider that Obama intervening in a civil war in 2013 where everyone is shouting for him to do or not to do something ain't exactly the same thing as Bush in 2003 or Reagan in the 80s.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

But it is the same driving economic and political forces.

Sent via mobile.

 

[NovaKart]

But it is the same driving economic and political forces.

Sent via mobile.

So you're just assuming this is done entirely for the sake of military contracts.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So you're saying the US it not getting involved in conflicts as part of its strategy to maintain power but instead to fuel the military-industrial complex or some hippie thing like that?

This man would like a word with you and your insult of choice:


Link to video.

 

[Pangur Bán]

So basically some argument that the US is some faceless evil empire that invades countries because it's just evil and to provide hipsters with something to complain about while consuming its products.

I dunno why you're even talking to me, you obviously have another interlocutor in mind when you 'respond' to me.