Let's have a vote: Should the West intervene in Syria?

See the thread title.


  • Total voters
    119
Well, I'd always look for other explanations first. It's not enough for a leader to have the emotion to do something when his power is constitutionally limited, at least.
Of course world leaders act rationally. As rationally as anybody else. That is, some decisions they make after a long, deliberative process and logically conclude on the best course of action. Other times, they invade Cuba with no air support because Castro might forget to fuel his jets that day.
 
Patriotism =/= "My country wrong or right," it means "Right my country's wrongs."

And what would our country's wrongs be?

World politics is a game bby, the winners are hated and the losers are pitied. Unless you mean we've made unwise moves or poor executions of moves, then I would probably agree. Except the moves you deem unwise and the executions you see as poor are likely the ones that will not be see an such by mainstream thinkers with their feet in the real world.

Now domestically there have been a few...follies...But I'm sure you'll be on about infringing the rights of the wealthy to help feed the poor and all that.
 
And what would our country's wrongs be?
"IF you want a complete dissertation on the effects of current US and world neo-colonial policies, see Dachs."

RT did provide a suggestion.

Human beings making decisions using human emotions is clearly not possible. The second these people become heads-of-state the lizard-people reverse-vampire Illuminati - which are anti-communist - suck all the emotion out of skulls and force them to operate according to a combination of state pragmatism and hooker-impregnation.

Human being simulacra making decisions without using human emotions is clearly not possible. The second these people become heads-of-state they are imbued with the full potentials of their constituents whose directives they follow devotedly out of service to humanity and humanity's aspirations to philosophical ideals over mediocrity and banality.
 
RT did provide a suggestion.
"World politics is a game bby, the winners are hated and the losers are pitied. Unless you mean we've made unwise moves or poor executions of moves, then I would probably agree. Except the moves you deem unwise and the executions you see as poor are likely the ones that will not be see an such by mainstream thinkers with their feet in the real world." ~DemonicAppleGuY
 
"World politics is a game bby, the winners are hated and the losers are pitied. Unless you mean we've made unwise moves or poor executions of moves, then I would probably agree. Except the moves you deem unwise and the executions you see as poor are likely the ones that will not be see an such by mainstream thinkers with their feet in the real world." ~DemonicAppleGuY
I also don't think any one nation is the source of evil. The US is simply the current head of the reactionary forces of the world.

I am a class warrior, and practitioner of what I believe, not some single-minded automaton spouting Party line. Although I am quite adept at that, too. This is not a WH exercise in Monday morning history quarterbacking. (Actually, it's a game forum). Real lives are lost everyday from the same system that creates immense wealth for a select few, while African children pick through discarded electronics to recycle component and radioactive material who will likely not see a 23rd birthday. A system that has created a climate where ten times as many deaths occur as a result of heat than all other natural disasters COMBINED. I have been dealing with this a lot this past summer.

Leaders are readers. Not the other way around.

Make history, don't be history.

Sent via mobile.
Nuff said...
 
"World politics is a game bby, the winners are hated and the losers are pitied. Unless you mean we've made unwise moves or poor executions of moves, then I would probably agree. Except the moves you deem unwise and the executions you see as poor are likely the ones that will not be see an such by mainstream thinkers with their feet in the real world." ~DemonicAppleGuY

I'm surprised you didn't take the opportunity to spell check, although maybe I shouldn't be given the nature of your post. Politics for you is a game where right and wrong are conflated with winning and losing, and so much as you want to avoid being "wrong" or being a loser, you switch allegiances between sides to serve your own interests. Ethics and reality have no other definition for you than what you consider to be aligned with your own selfish interests, although this too is a misstatement. Given the whimsical nature of your allegiances, your self-interests, including your "ethics" and view of "reality," are airy in resistance and are determined for you by the various factions who would seek to co-opt your support for their own purposes, lest by knowledge you can do the same to them. I have my doubts about that given your commentary in the "Use of chemical weapons" thread, picking out the "Obama wants" parts as one mere example.
 
Jeez, Dachs, if you think that the American government only works for American corporate interests, or if you that that social-climbing son of single-mother-numbers-runner Clinton (my work supervisor c.1989 - 1991 was neighbors with the Clintons) -- who married into an old money family -- was motivated by guilt, then I weep for your naivete.

I also don't think any one nation is the source of evil. The US is simply the current head of the reactionary forces of the world.

I am a class warrior, and practitioner of what I believe, not some single-minded automaton spouting Party line. Although I am quite adept at that, too. This is not a WH exercise in Monday morning history quarterbacking. (Actually, it's a game forum). Real lives are lost everyday from the same system that creates immense wealth for a select few, while African children pick through discarded electronics to recycle component and radioactive material who will likely not see a 23rd birthday. A system that has created a climate wher ten times as many deaths occur as a result of heat than all other natural disasters COMBINED. I have been dealing with this a lot this past summer.

And don't tell my Cuban Communist Angolan War veteran friends that Cuban blood was wasted. The Angolan War was not just about Angola, it was also about beginning to nail the lid on the coffin of Apartheid -- something those veterans are proud to have been a part of.

Leaders are readers. Not the other way around.

Make history, don't be history.

Sent via mobile.
This is a fairly bizarre post (which is about par for the course from you, I suppose). I don't really see a coherent effort at arguing with what I actually have to say with facts. I don't really see a coherent anything at all, really.

You once again repeat your claim that I am naïve for suggesting that the American government was not motivated by financial, mineral, or aggressive power-political factors in playing the role that it did during the Great Lakes and Congo conflicts. But you don't actually back this up with anything other than, "I know a guy who said Clinton was a greedy social climber THEREFORE American policy in Africa in the 1990s was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY BOYS". Any efforts to demonstrate that America and Americans did not actually benefit from the Congo Wars by securing "control" of Congo mineral resources is shouted down with repeated shrill cries of "naïveté!"

You have far more to say about class warfare. This isn't particularly coherent, either, of course. Between the self-congratulatory assertions of how much you're doing to Help Real People and the insinuations that I am engaging in pedantic "Monday-morning quarterbacking" by second-guessing decisions (whose?), there isn't really much substance. You talk about death from heat exhaustion, radioactive waste, the One Percent, and it's all just a weird jumble of bog-standard boring ultra-left talking points, most of which have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with either me or the point I'm trying to make.

And then you bring up your alleged Cuban veterans of Angola - ooh look at me I know Real Revolutionary Barricaders gaise, bask in my aura of authenticity! - and how they'd be awfully pissed off to hear people say that their Bold and Courageous Fighting was wasted. Okay, whatever. You'd say the same thing in defense of a "capitalist imperialist" war, like a hypothetical one in Syria, I'm sure. And no, there's no obvious, direct link to draw between the Angolan war (and the actions of SWAPO, which were more or less related) and the end of apartheid. One could make the argument that Cuba's efforts created a more real threat to South African security than might otherwise have existed, and therefore helped mobilize Afrikaner opinion in favor of wars and policies that would probably have been significantly less popular, therefore extending segregationist and imperialist policies. So yes, I feel perfectly justified in saying that the Angolan intervention was largely a waste of Cuban blood and treasure because the MPLA eventually solved its Savimbi problem without the support of Castro's condottieri.

Anyway. This is like talking to a freaking Whoopie cushion. I guess I'll just back away slowly from here on out.
:lol:

I refute that this was a "uniquely poor effort" entirely.

But thanks for the truly educational stuff, anyway.

Still, nowhere have I ever suggested, or rather intended to suggest (since, who knows, someone may have taken me to mean that I did), that humanitarian aid shouldn't include a concerted, sincere, and persistent diplomatic effort.

Now, how about a list of conflicts that haven't been successfully resolved by military action?
I think that in order for something to qualify as a refutation, you have to provide evidence, or at least reasoning, for why something is not the way somebody else says it is. :) I would say that it was uniquely poor because your response to my claim that there was no military intervention against the forces causing atrocities in the Congo was to bring up the existence of...the forces causing atrocities in the Congo.

Here's an example of something similar. Say that at some point during Game 7 of the NBA Finals, the Spurs team and coaching staff gets together. Gregg Popovich basically tells everybody, "Okay, guys, I don't know how we can handle LeBron. We've tried doubling him in the post, we've tried cutting off his passing lanes by fronting Miami's shooters, we've tried straight zone, and even Timmy can't totally stop him in the restricted area. We need a solution." Some assistant comes up and says, "Guys! Guys. There's a lockdown defender in this very building. Why don't we use him?" Everybody looks at him expectantly. The assistant leans forward conspiratorially, then says, "Let's put in LeBron James. He'll shut that guy down for sure!"

That's what I mean. I don't think I've ever seen somebody suggest something that silly before. That's why I called it unique.

Anyway. I am in no way here to argue in favor of American military intervention in Syria, or that of any other country. That's not what I do. Prescriptive policies aren't my thing. The point that I am trying to make is that humanitarian aid is well and good in a country suffering from violence, but it won't stop the violence. It's a Band-Aid on the global conscience at best, a way for Concerned Citizens to pat themselves on the back and say "okay, well, at least we're doing something to help" when the very thing that's making life so crappy for people - the war - is still happening. Care packages, blankets, clothes, and tents don't stop the bullets. Often, as I mentioned in the Congo example, aid not backed up by force can be seized by the very people who are sustaining the war, and used to finance their struggle.

It's nice that you think that this aid must be accompanied by "a concerted, sincere, and persistent diplomatic effort", but I don't think that you - or anybody else, including me - has any idea what that means, or whether it will help anything. It's basically meaningless boilerplate. And what happens if this mythical Diplomatic Solution doesn't end up working? The list of conflicts that have kept rolling while endless negotiations are drawn out to no point or purpose is long and depressing.

And sure, there are plenty of armies that have spun their wheels in endless repetitive conflict that doesn't solve anything, too. That's usually why intervention gets brought up in the first place. :p Naturally, people should have a good idea of how the military side of an intervention ought to work, just as with the diplomatic or humanitarian angles. But that's, again, not why I'm here. You can argue that, if a military intervention in a given conflict had been pursued differently, it might have turned out better (or worse). The problem with a purely humanitarian approach, however, is that you can't change the fundamental calculus of being at the mercy of the men with guns that are actually fighting the war. No amount of aid, or aid differently disbursed, will change that. Humanitarian solutions must be pursued in a context without violence, and there are only two ways to make sure that happens: either get the protection of an army, or stop the war somehow (also usually involving an army).
 
@ Dachs: it bears repeating:
IF you want a complete dissertation on the effects of current US and world neo-colonial policies, see Dachs.

If you want to kick their bourgie asses, see ReindeerThistle.

Historicism is not Marxism. I take sides, not pictures.
Thank you for your last post. I agree, back away. I did not wish to argue with you on the data about the other African wars, as I had none. I have met members of the RPF and veterans of the Zimbabwean independence, but never got into conversations with them.

You obviously put more stock in book learning than in real world experience. If you want to believe that Clinton acted out of guilt, be my guest. I happen to know he serves a class, whatever you may think. You cannot serve two masters, and he consciously serves the bourgeoisie. All other motives are secondary. That is how leadership works.

If you want to believe that Cubans wasted their blood in Angola, go ahead. It is their blood to shed. Not yours.

I cannot give you my real world experiences, and I am not as erudite a writer as you. At the end of the day, my progress is measured in varying ways -- cadre recruited, shut-offs prevented, patients seen by a doctor, cabinets installed, whatever. Not in arguments on a game forum.

Yes, I know real live Cuban communists. I will continue to bring that up since you get such a rise out of it. I also hope to meet Maduro when he comes to town. We have been invited to some of his events. Just puttin' that out there. I have friends everywhere with movements all over -- even in the ANC. The ANC, btw, recognize Cuba's contribution to the anti-Apartheid struggle. So, I don't give a hoot if you don't.

Take comfort in your most confident positions on world events. And keep your eyes open, because you may be writing about me someday. You have already written much TO me.

Yours, Truly,
A real live communist who practices real live communism.

RT
 
I agree, it is far better to be a mindless mouthpiece for a discredited political ideology than it is to be a relatively objective educated individual. Resorting to name-calling and unprovable personal comments is a superior argumentative strategy than illustrating one's points with evidence. And your delusions of grandeur are totally going to come true. We will all be writing about you someday. We will all watch from the gutter, we will, as Dear Leader ReindeerThistle caresses our fancy box.
 
I wonder who is going to be the first to deny that Assad handing over chemical weapins is a good thing?
 
I wonder who is going to be the first to deny that Assad handing over chemical weapins is a good thing?

I don't think anyone will deny it, but I think many will deny how possible it is and possibly state that some of the results of it could be somewhat not good.

This article touches on it.
 
I wonder who is going to be the first to deny that Assad handing over chemical weapins is a good thing?

As an act of good faith, this is a very good thing. And, of course a driving factor is the threat of force.

I do not think it will keep the US from striking Syria.

Not cynicism, just not optimistic about US foreign policy.

Sent via mobile.
 
I agree, it is far better to be a mindless mouthpiece for a discredited political ideology than it is to be a relatively objective educated individual....

Case in point: Fidel can walk freely through the streets of Harlem USA or La Habana Cuba while the POTUSA needs full armed and armored accompaniment.

Sent via mobile.
 
As an act of good faith, this is a very good thing. And, of course a driving factor is the threat of force.

I do not think it will keep the US from striking Syria.

Not cynicism, just not optimistic about US foreign policy.

Sent via mobile.
Yeah if he renegs on the deal we're still going to bomb him. Let's hope diplomacy works. :)
Case in point: Fidel can walk freely through the streets of Harlem USA or La Habana Cuba while the POTUSA needs full armed and armored accompaniment.

Sent via mobile.
You sure Fidel's not still looking over his shoulder for US assassins? ;)
 
Yeah if he renegs on the deal we're still going to bomb him. Let's hope diplomacy works. :)
Yes. Rockets are better used for exploration than making widows. ;)
You sure Fidel's not still looking over his shoulder for US assassins? ;)
I'm sure he is, but he is not guarded like a Faberge egg like the POTUSA.

Besides, there areva thousand to take his place.

There is a funny story in Lee Lockwoood's Castro's Cuba, Cuba's Fidel where Lockwood is with Fidel, Fidel's aide de camp I believe, and Fidel's bodyguard. Fidel was driving the jeep they were in, and the bodyguard is in te backseat reading American comic books.

They stop to join a baseball game and when the game is over the bodyguard can't find his rifle. They look everywhere and find the rifle in the bag with the baseball bats!

Well, I think it's a funny story.

Sent via mobile.
 
Yeah if he renegs on the deal we're still going to bomb him. Let's hope diplomacy works. :)

You sure Fidel's not still looking over his shoulder for US assassins? ;)
I'm sure the fact that Fidel tortured, executed or exiled all organised opposition to his regime decades ago and maintains a low-level reign of terror to this day has nothing to do with it. Fidel's just a stand-up guy, all around.
 
There is quite a difference between the President of the United States and Castro. One is a mummified Cold War relic running a sordid little dictatorship, while the other is arguably the most powerful person in the world with the ability to vaporize a country or two off the map.
 
Which is which? Besides, there have been over 600 attempts on Castro's life -- and not ONE on Obama's.

So, Castro us hardly a relic.

Lord Baal, on the other hand...

Sent via mobile.
 
Back
Top Bottom