The Syrian Situation

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Let me highlight too things for in my original post.

'currently engaged in a civil war'
'receiving open support from that government'

Your first example doesn't apply to either of them. Your second example doesn't apply to the second statement.
Until Britain opens her harms to Chechen independence and gives support to the separatist rebels, it's not in the same situation as Turkey and the Syrian opposition.

In the real world, if you took situations so strictly you could call practically anything uncommon...

 

[aronnax]

In the real world, if you took situations so strictly you could call practically anything uncommon...

That makes absolutely no sense. How am I being strict? I have two conditions only. There's a reason why Turkey hosting and supporting a rebel government is a far more courageous diplomatic move than Britain merely granting asylum to one person on the basis of fear of Russian torture. Britain neither condemns or condones the Chechnya Crisis and allows one person she views is a political refugee to stay in Britain. Turkey is supporting the downfall of the Syrian Government in both arms, diplomacy, support and literally, hosting the entire opposition government and military command on her soil.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

That makes absolutely no sense. How am I being strict? I have two conditions only. There's a reason why Turkey hosting and supporting a rebel government is a far more courageous diplomatic move than Britain merely granting asylum to one person on the basis of fear of Russian torture. Britain neither condemns or condones the Chechnya Crisis and allows one person she views is a political refugee to stay in Britain. Turkey is supporting the downfall of the Syrian Government in both arms, diplomacy, support and literally, hosting the entire opposition government and military command on her soil.

In other words, Turkey doesn't have enough power and ground to invade the country how the West does when it directly supports rebels, but is lucky to border the country compared to other sides interested to include Syria in its sphere of influence.

 

[Tycho]

Only when those human lives are in countries that can be picked on by the Western powers, right? China, no friend of rights, can purge and kill with impunity. But once some tiny tinpot despotate goes too far, that's when the jingoists puff out their chests and bravely send other people's kids to kill other people's kids in far-off lands.*

*note: countries can exempt themselves from this by purchasing a sufficient amount of Western arms/towing the American line on Israel.

Actually, no.

I'm wrong.

Let's go for it. Let's free the whole world! Next stop Moscow!



Yeeeeeeehaaaaw!


Impressive?

Attacking China would be similar to attacking Russia during any time during the Cold War. Two large world powers colliding would not end well in terms of number of people still living after such a conflict.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Actually, maybe the lives of outsiders are meaningless and worthless, and our superior and advanced military technology should not be used to help the less fortunate that are dying by the throngs. After all, why would we waste a dime, let alone risk actual American lives, on non-Americans.

The US is behind half these regimes anyway. The "Freedom coalition" trying to join the winning side in Libya included Saudi Arabia, which simultaneously with the Libyan "freedom campaign" was violently putting down its own freedom movements and those in Bahrain.

People need to stop analysing the foreign policy options of the great Western countries as if the democratic ideology actually had significance. It never does and is only used as secondary ideological propaganda for pursuit of other more rational strategic goals. America's late great ally Mubarak had the same human rights record throughout his reign, but Westerners only ever criticized him for "human rights" when he was not taking the right line on something else. Only when an anti-American revolution was clearly was about to remove him did the US publicly abandon him.

 

[Oruc]

My opinion is that I have seen so much media manipulation and outright propaganda being used to justify meddling into other countries in turmoil that I absolutely do not believe any of your quoted sources. It'll take some source with ironclad credentials of neutrality for me to believe anything about what's going on inside Syria at this time.

This is my position aswell.

I believe it is the moral imperative of all humanitarian-aligned and freedom-loving countries to commence a military interventionism campaign that would invade Syria, overthrow and depose the current government by military force, and establish peace and a democratic system.

Hell, I'd even take a puppet government over what's happening there now.

Protecting human lives across the globe is very much our business. And if it isn't, it should be, under any proper moral standard.

Obviously invading China would likely spark a world war, and would cause more harm than it's worth.

Its only a moral imperative if its convenient it seems.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Only when those human lives are in countries that can be picked on by the Western powers, right? China, no friend of rights, can purge and kill with impunity. But once some tiny tinpot despotate goes too far, that's when the jingoists puff out their chests and bravely send other people's kids to kill other people's kids in far-off lands.*

*note: countries can exempt themselves from this by purchasing a sufficient amount of Western arms/towing the American line on Israel.

Actually, no.

I'm wrong.

Let's go for it. Let's free the whole world! Next stop Moscow!



Yeeeeeeehaaaaw!


Impressive?

Wow. Funny how noticeable gradual change is when you leave for a while and come back.

Attacking China would be similar to attacking Russia during any time during the Cold War. Two large world powers colliding would not end well in terms of number of people still living after such a conflict.

*Facepalm*

 

[Defiant47]

The US is behind half these regimes anyway. The "Freedom coalition" trying to join the winning side in Libya included Saudi Arabia, which simultaneously with the Libyan "freedom campaign" was violently putting down its own freedom movements and those in Bahrain.

[...]America's late great ally Mubarak had the same human rights record throughout his reign, but Westerners only ever criticized him for "human rights" when he was not taking the right line on something else. Only when an anti-American revolution was clearly was about to remove him did the US publicly abandon him.

There's a difference between supporting and tolerating these regimes. Just because the US is within a world full of immoral dictators, doesn't mean that it should shun and ignore all diplomatic and economic endeavours with their countries.

You could too easily name it "sanctioning" their dictatorships, but there's only so much we can do, and only so far that we can extend beyond our own self-interest.

Its only a moral imperative if its convenient it seems.

It's only a moral imperative if it's possible.

 

[Pangur Bán]

There's a difference between supporting and tolerating these regimes. Just because the US is within a world full of immoral dictators, doesn't mean that it should shun and ignore all diplomatic and economic endeavours with their countries.

You could too easily name it "sanctioning" their dictatorships, but there's only so much we can do, and only so far that we can extend beyond our own self-interest.



It's only a moral imperative if it's possible.

This is the public misunderstanding of how US policy works. The US has no interest in promoting democracy at all, and actively supports dictatorships against democracies ... i.e. without active US involvement democracies would come into existence. In fact, no country has toppled more democracies than the US has (Iran and Chile are just the most famous) in pursuit of actual strategic goals (keeping oil prices low, fighting the Soviets, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert...ime_change_actions#Communist_states_1945-1989
Its support of democracy is public rhetoric, used when convenient. It supports women's rights when convenient (recently in Afghanistan), and supports their suppression when that is convenient (the psycho Islamists the US imposed on Afghanistan in the 80s, Saudis now, etc). Saudi Arabia for instance is not a dictatorship the US simply tolerates for getting along in the world ... the US is actually behind the Saudi dictatorship (which otherwise would disappear).

 

[innonimatu]

This is the public misunderstanding of how US policy works. The US has no interest in promoting democracy at all, and actively supports dictatorships against democracies ... i.e. without active US involvement democracies would come into existence. In fact, no country has toppled more democracies than the US has (Iran and Chile are just the most famous) in pursuit of actual strategic goals (keeping oil prices low, fighting the Soviets, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert...ime_change_actions#Communist_states_1945-1989
Its support of democracy is public rhetoric, used when convenient. It supports women's rights when convenient (recently in Afghanistan), and supports their suppression when that is convenient (the psycho Islamists the US imposed on Afghanistan in the 80s, Saudis now, etc). Saudi Arabia for instance is not a dictatorship the US simply tolerates for getting along in the world ... the US is actually behind the Saudi dictatorship (which otherwise would disappear) which is the keystone to the US's domination of the Middle East and its oil.

Don't forget Bahrain recently, where at the same time the US was bombing other countries purportedly on behalf of armed "popular rebellions" it allowed one local and proven peaceful rebellion to be crushed by force, with the aid of troops from US allies and NATO-armed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

You just can't get more hypocritical that the US, France et al did back then. Support for democracy my ass.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Don't forget Bahrain recently, where at the same time the US was bombing other countries purportedly on behalf of armed "popular rebellions" it allowed one local and proven peaceful rebellion to be crushed by force, with the aid of troops from US allies and NATO-armed Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

You just can't get more hypocritical that the US, France et al did back then. Support for democracy my ass.

I think you missed post 25.

 

[aronnax]

In other words, Turkey doesn't have enough power and ground to invade the country how the West does when it directly supports rebels, but is lucky to border the country compared to other sides interested to include Syria in its sphere of influence.

I don't think any country wants to invade Syria. Be it Turkey or the US or a US that shares a border with Turkey. Although meddling in the affairs of other countries in this extent is a more normal discipline for the bigger powers against a smaller power (USA, UK, France), it is uncommon for two middle powers to do the same short of war outright war.

Look at Jordan, who shares a border with Syria. While the King has condemned Syria, he hasn't hosted or supported or supplied the members of the opposition in Syria. If anything, Jordan has a bigger stake in Syria than Turkey does.

 

[r16]

edit moved to top : the capital letters are meant for stressing them and not anything against the established rules of Internet communication . ı just liker cover everything .


HO HO hell NO
we won't go.

we have other places to go .

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Would the OP please PM me (or another moderator) a new OP that doesn't include the full text of articles? Please see rule 6b in the 'OT Additional Rules' thread. Closed for now.