|
I really, really hope that the new thread title is wrong.
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Think critically not cynically
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Yeah. Summary: "Something must be done. Measuring our response. Punishment TBD."
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Squalid posted:The best way to avoid offensive insinuations about one's own motives is probably to not make offensive insinuations about other's. Like I honestly find it insane how some posters have reacted against any hypotheses which run counter to the pro-rebel narrative, even when said hypotheses were proposed specifically to be refuted, and thus ultimately bolster the rebel's claims. It's like many posters are completely blind to intent, and anyone attempting to think critically is viewed as a threat. No one got upset when that weirdo shouting about how the Muslim Brotherhood was going to tax christians or w/e was asked to provide evidence, but suddenly in this discussion trying to think rationally makes you Assad's toady. If we're going to let the tone of debate degenerate to that level don't be surprised if people get offended and defensive, and then all we have is an argument, which doesn't benefit anyone. The problem is frequently found in the context of the questions asked. Typically, one presenting an opposing viewpoint as 'devil's advocate' will couch it in language identifying it as such - without making one's intent clear it's no better than just being a troll of one variety or another. On the other hand there are people who are basically ascribing lovely motives to various arguments without attempting to explain why - there's only a few of those but it mainly falls into the "if you believe the rebel narrative you're literally Paul Wolfowitz and are getting duped into a big ol' war" slot whereas the "if you suspect a false-flag attack..." accusations range from "you singlehandedly double the price of tinfoil" to "you just want to stir poo poo" to "you're emotionally invested in arguing against whatever the West says." There aren't many people claiming everyone who deviates from the Assad-as-war-criminal narrative is somehow snuggling with Bashar and Vlad. So yes, if you want to avoid having unwanted motives ascribed to your arguments, it would behoove you to avoid acting like anyone not in full agreement is immediately a Bad Person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
US warning UN to leave, Kerry treating CW usage as fact, and saying there must be accountability, means something concrete will happen soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Xandu posted:US warning UN to leave, Kerry treating CW usage as fact, and saying there must be accountability, means something concrete will happen soon. Has there been any word on the UN inspectors giving an ETA or any kind of timeframe for their investigation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
No and the US can't order that, the unsc is responsible, but WSJ reported US privately told them their mission was pointless and unsafe and to leave.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
It's about time. After this we'll see a less intransigent Iran.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Those figures don't include native soldiers and levies, which would push that number up by quite a hefty amount. In India alone the British army was 66,000 in 1880, but had 130,000 natives and 350,000 soldiers in princely armies. It was easy to control a country when you paid its leaders to do it for you. I didn't think this was worth mentioning given the US has client states and allied armies to this day yet maintains a vastly larger army. That British managed to maintain such a massive empire with such a small core force of its' own troops is noteworthy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I always figured the thread title in this case would be Watch Obama Start A loving War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
I'm partial to "I'm John Kerry, and I'm Reporting for Duty!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Text of Kerry's statement here. Not to go all pop culture here, but if this is just about hitting the CW assets, I'm reminded about the spiel in Breaking Bad about half measures...
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:I always figured the thread title in this case would be Watch Obama Start A loving War. Dude, Obama isn't starting a war. He's loving getting sucked into it after trying his damndest to stay the gently caress out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:I always figured the thread title in this case would be Watch Obama Start A loving War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Bush (and many other people) didn't think he started Afghanistan either. People usually find a way to make it Not Our Fault in their head. Particularly when the options are all pretty bad. I can't fault any of his choices here as being *particularly* awful, but US intervention is likely to deepen an already extremely bloody crisis and a power vacuum is not improbable. And it's pretty much the inevitable outcome of a century of realpolitik and arbitrary lines drawn to suit superpowers that don't at all match natural demographic divides. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Dude, Obama isn't starting a war. He's loving getting sucked into it after trying his damndest to stay the gently caress out of it. 12 dimensional chessmaster attempts to figure out how not to order an attack, ends up mated by his own party's warmongers in 4 moves
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
The Middle East: Wrap It Up, Assadailures
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Dude, Obama isn't starting a war. He's loving getting sucked into it after trying his damndest to stay the gently caress out of it. What utter bollocks, the only way to get sucked into a war is to have someone declare war upon you and only crazy jingoists think otherwise. It will nice to see this conflict become even worse with US intervention though and to laugh at those stupid fucks in the Norwegian Nobel committee some more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
When will the strikes happen? I'll bet (literally nothing) that it will be before Sept. 5th.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The problem is frequently found in the context of the questions asked. Typically, one presenting an opposing viewpoint as 'devil's advocate' will couch it in language identifying it as such - without making one's intent clear it's no better than just being a troll of one variety or another. Yeah, sorry but I'm not about to accept that hypotheses testing is automatically trolling. I'm sorry that you're tone deaf and I'm sure it's a serious medical condition, but devil's advocacy is seriously useful for finding correct conclusions. Unfortunately even specifically identifying statements as devil's advocacy isn't enough to avoid castigation, see this example from earlier in the thread: farraday posted:
Like simply for trying to confirm evidence Poidinger was called equivalent to a 9/11 denialist and was alluded to as an Assad supporter despite specifically denying ever having held such beliefs. I know thinking is hard and it's easy to hate those who try and make us go through the effort but it doesn't do us any good to cry troll every time we're asked to think critically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Son of a bitch. They could have done this a year ago and all the lives of the past year that were lost would still be alive, and we'd be in a better strategic situation. I can't believe after all that, they're just up and deciding now's the time to do something. Please don't gently caress this up. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:What utter bollocks, the only way to get sucked into a war is to have someone declare war upon you and only crazy jingoists think otherwise. It will nice to see this conflict become even worse with US intervention though and to laugh at those stupid fucks in the Norwegian Nobel committee some more. Look, we're gonna be killing them and handing the country over to other ruthless murders in a humane way, okay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I didn't think this was worth mentioning given the US has client states and allied armies to this day yet maintains a vastly larger army. That British managed to maintain such a massive empire with such a small core force of its' own troops is noteworthy. The two situations aren't really comparable. The British armies, levies, and native allies were usually used to keep order and suppress the natives in a country they already had a presence in. The US needs drones and cruise missiles precisely so that we can gently caress around in countries we don't have a presence in without incurring the political costs of an invasion or a ground presence. We've already put the bulk of our operations in Afghanistan in the hands of the local allied army, but there aren't any US-trained and US-loyal forces in Syria or Yemen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:What utter bollocks, the only way to get sucked into a war is to have someone declare war upon you and only crazy jingoists think otherwise. It will nice to see this conflict become even worse with US intervention though and to laugh at those stupid fucks in the Norwegian Nobel committee some more. Did you miss the it when Washington was kind of hedging around and France of all countries was pushing Obama to do something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Son of a bitch. They could have done this a year ago and all the lives of the past year that were lost would still be alive, and we'd be in a better strategic situation. I can't believe after all that, they're just up and deciding now's the time to do something. Please don't gently caress this up. I don't blame NATO for not wanting to stick their hands into a meat grinder. No one could've guessed how things would've turned out over the last year. For example: Who the gently caress thought that Hezbollah would get involved in a war against other Muslims outside of Lebanon?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Did you miss the it when Washington was kind of hedging around and France of all countries was pushing Obama to do something? People need to stop pretending that France is somehow a peaceful or weak nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France#Post-1945_warfare
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Son of a bitch. They could have done this a year ago and all the lives of the past year that were lost would still be alive, and we'd be in a better strategic situation. I can't believe after all that, they're just up and deciding now's the time to do something. Please don't gently caress this up. I'm sure we would have been welcomed as liberators too! And the population would not (will not) come to resent us the second they disagree with the most powerful military in the world. How are the winners of the election doing in Egypt, again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Did you miss the it when Washington was kind of hedging around and France of all countries was pushing Obama to do something? That still isn't being dragged into a war and what do you mean France of all countries? They France has intervened in a shitload of different countries since decolonization or haven't you read any history and rely upon the cowardly Frenchman stereotype that is so popular in the US after France didn't support the retarded invasion of Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I don't blame NATO for not wanting to stick their hands into a meat grinder. No one could've guessed how things would've turned out over the last year. For example: Who the gently caress thought that Hezbollah would get involved in a war against other Muslims outside of Lebanon? NATO is still not going to stick our hands in the meat grinder. We're just going to bomb from a distance. No way we are sending actual live people there now that we know they are not afraid to use chemical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'm sure we would have been welcomed as liberators too! And the population would not (will not) come to resent us the second they disagree with the most powerful military in the world. Jeez, that was a quick edit there... Isn't the talk just about strikes, not about troops? It's pretty hard to welcome an inanimate object as a liberator. People ITT are pretty quick to draw parallels to the Iraqi invasion when there is really little in common.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:NATO is still not going to stick our hands in the meat grinder. We're just going to bomb from a distance. No way we are sending actual live people there now that we know they are not afraid to use chemical weapons. It's pretty easy to get sucked in further. What happens if Assad decides to retaliate by lobbing bombs into Turkey or Jordan or Israel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:It's pretty easy to get sucked in further. What happens if Assad decides to retaliate by lobbing bombs into Turkey or Jordan or Israel? Then I'm pretty sure those countries will retaliate with US assistance. If he wants to bomb Turkey, he is utterly hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Carney's less hawkish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:It's pretty easy to get sucked in further. What happens if Assad decides to retaliate by lobbing bombs into Turkey or Jordan or Israel? It would just catalyze an air campaign. I don't see Assad wanting to expand his list of enemies - he's already got plenty. If anything, he'd retaliate by transferring weapons over to Hezbollah. That would really kickstart the war in Lebanon that everyone is expecting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Did you miss the it when Washington was kind of hedging around and France of all countries was pushing Obama to do something? France loves nothing more than getting involved in whatever the gently caress is happening in their former colonies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
The second that Obama made that red line speech he boxed himself in, he didn't have to use the term "red line" if he didn't want a war. He might have not wanted it in the beginning, but obviously Obama is very the attached to the idea of political optics at any cost and here we are. Obviously we aren't sending in ground troops right now, but the question is how this is going to end otherwise? Let's assume, the US takes out Syria's air defenses and bombs CW sites in a show of force. Due to the nature of chemical weapons, this is pretty difficult if not impossible especially if Syria is already using improvised munitions. If Assad uses chemical weapons again or even worse the rebels, it will be a political nightmare. The next point of failure if that the bombings don't allow the rebels to gain much momentum and it returns to a stalemate. After that even if the rebels win there is clear chance that they may turn on elements of the population that were loyal or assume to be loyal to Assad. The optics for Obama will be terrible if US/NATO bomb Syria and things radically go off course, which to be honest I think they will. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Jeez, that was a quick edit there... Indeed, this one is even dumber than the last one. Not to mention that the last one wasn't promoted by a Nobel Peace prize winner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Like simply for trying to confirm evidence Poidinger was called equivalent to a 9/11 denialist and was alluded to as an Assad supporter despite specifically denying ever having held such beliefs. I know thinking is hard and it's easy to hate those who try and make us go through the effort but it doesn't do us any good to cry troll every time we're asked to think critically. You mean the guy who didn't even watch the Youtube videos that Brown Moses linked that had the locations listed in the comments? Also the guy who immediately went into theorizing how the rebels could have been behind the attack without using any known facts to back up anything he said? Maybe if someone is going to go against the grain of known information and present a contrary theory they will at least link evidence instead of relying on everyone else to counter their so-called theory with the already known information. Crazy I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Indeed, this one is even dumber than the last one. Not to mention that the last one wasn't promoted by a Nobel Peace prize winner. Dude, just because you won a Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean you can't blow people up every once in awhile. See: Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:The second that Obama made that red line speech he boxed himself in, he didn't have to use the term "red line" if he didn't want a war. He might have not wanted it in the beginning, but obviously Obama is very the attached to the idea of political optics at any cost and here we are. Obama had no alternative - the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable. If he stood by while Syria got inundated with sarin and VX, he would lose all credibility as a world leader and the Western principles of humane warfare would be seriously tarnished. And he'd still be forced to act, because there's no way it would be contained to Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 20:55
|
|