|
CeeJee posted:I'm pretty sure that if I say 'the number of civilian deaths per month will go from 3,000 to 1,500 after a limited strike' you will counter with 'without the strikes it would have gone down to 100' and there is no way to prove you wrong. You're the one proposing action, so the burden of proof is on you. I want to see an awareness of the many factors affecting violence. How will strikes affect the sectarian balance? How will it lead to a mitigation of the violent and exploitative activity by regime elements, rebels and the many foreign fighters and criminals now plying their trade in Syria and its border regions? Give me an ideal post-intervention scenario, say a year from now. Tell me how strikes will have affected that scenario for the better. I'm not just asking the people in this thread, no one has been able to provide this, from generals to rebels to heads of state. It's plumb amazing how fuzzy thinking gets once everybody who wasn't really paying attention gets involved.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I blocked conspiracy superstar Partisangirl last night, and in response she's made a whole Youtube video about me .ילדה מסכנה. היא אפילו לא יודעת מה אויב רב עוצמה שהיא עשתה בעצמה
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You're the one proposing action, so the burden of proof is on you. I want to see an awareness of the many factors affecting violence. How will strikes affect the sectarian balance? How will it lead to a mitigation of the violent and exploitative activity by regime elements, rebels and the many foreign fighters and criminals now plying their trade in Syria and its border regions? Because those reports that detail what you're asking are not for public consumption. What you're asking for is something a professional analyst would do for quite a bit of money. It's great that you're showing us here how smart you are, but for you're asking for is well beyond what should be expected on a comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:He's laying out a hell of a case, IMO. I'm listening to the debate on BBC radio. Pretty lively debate and drat good points being brought up by all sides. The one huge thing being batted around is Iraq and 2003, which made me sad and depressed. It seems we'll live with that retard Bush's stupid decisions for the next 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Brown Moses, that girl got you got. Wrap it up, imperialist pigdog. AllanGordon posted:Because those reports that detail what you're asking are not for public consumption. What you're asking for is something a professional analyst would do for quite a bit of money. It's great that you're showing us here how smart you are, but for you're asking for is well beyond what should be expected on a comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Because those reports that detail what you're asking are not for public consumption. What you're asking for is something a professional analyst would do for quite a bit of money. It's great that you're showing us here how smart you are, but for you're asking for is well beyond what should be expected on a comedy forum. I don't understand. If you don't have the smarts to game it out, why are you advocating for it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Brown Moses, that girl got you got. Wrap it up, imperialist pigdog. Lets assume there is some high level intel we do not have that Obama does. Its not Bush this time so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Brown Moses, that girl got you got. Wrap it up, brownailures. Fixed that for you. Also, if the US plan for intervention to stop the mass killings in Syria's step one is bombing, what's step two? Are we going to be part of an international peace keeping force to prevent another civil war from breaking out? Is that peace keeping force going to be UN, NATO, or whoever shows up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I'm listening to the debate on BBC radio. Pretty lively debate and drat good points being brought up by all sides. The one huge thing being batted around is Iraq and 2003, which made me sad and depressed. It seems we'll live with that retard Bush's stupid decisions for the next 50 years. It's not only that. The problems with Bush in 2003 weren't only the lies about the WMD, but also the total lack of a plan regarding the post-Saddam. Proof or no proof on who used what and where, if there must be an intervention this time, there better be a plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't understand. If you don't have the smarts to game it out, why are you advocating for it? "Prove what you're saying will result in nothing bad happening EVER." QED 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Lets assume there is some high level intel we do not have that Obama does. Its not Bush this time so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't understand. If you don't have the smarts to game it out, why are you advocating for it? My apologies you are right. I have not written out a proposal detailing the effects that an intervention would have on every citizen in Syria. Shucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:My apologies you are right. I have not written out a proposal detailing the effects that an intervention would have on every citizen in Syria. Shucks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Why? You might as well assume that Obama has some high level other reasons for intervening, so why give him the benefit of the doubt? Oh, I don't know, you got me. Hear that Assad? Carry on with the chemical weapons, nobody cares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
Kaal posted:"Prove what you're saying will result in nothing bad happening EVER." QED Again, I don't get it. Lobbing cruise missiles at a country full of people shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't expect a magical solution, I drat well do expect some kind of argument that anything will improve. The admin has been very quiet on that front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I blocked conspiracy superstar Partisangirl last night, and in response she's made a whole Youtube video about me I was wondering when the evil femme fatale would show up. You still need a princess to rescue though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:It's not only that. The problems with Bush in 2003 weren't only the lies about the WMD, but also the total lack of a plan regarding the post-Saddam. Bush had a plan for post war Iraq. It jus sucked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Also, if the US plan for intervention to stop the mass killings in Syria's step one is bombing, what's step two? Are we going to be part of an international peace keeping force to prevent another civil war from breaking out? Is that peace keeping force going to be UN, NATO, or whoever shows up? Another civil war? Isn't the current one plenty enough? I don't think the currently proposed bombing will end the civil war. At most it will suggest Assad to stop using chemical weapons. SedanChair posted:Again, I don't get it. Lobbing cruise missiles at a country full of people shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't expect a magical solution, I drat well do expect some kind of argument that anything will improve. The admin has been very quiet on that front. Stop being a pedantic rear end for the sake of being a pedantic rear end. There have been plenty of arguments made, you just don't agree with them. For the record, how's this: after Assad sees his poo poo burning, he will stop gassing children. Is that enough of an improvement to you? Nenonen fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Is that partisangirl woman a conspiracy theorist, government agent provocateur or both?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Have you considered the effects, at least? Not God man but yes I have considered the facts that doing something to stop the chemical attacks versus nothing would benefit the innocent civilians in Syria more. The west should have intervened much sooner and supporter the FSA much harder, but cant change the past. Going forward a bombing campaign on SNA bases/storage is the best way to save lives in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Bush had a plan for post war Iraq. It jus sucked. Well yeah, but I hope you got my point. I should've said, next to plan, "real and serious". SedanChair posted:Again, I don't get it. Lobbing cruise missiles at a country full of people shouldn't be taken lightly. I don't expect a magical solution, I drat well do expect some kind of argument that anything will improve. The admin has been very quiet on that front. No poo poo, it almost seems that a few cruise missiles will make Assad repent, resignate and open a bright future of peace and harmony for Syria. I have yet to see one post about the desired outcome of the strikes; but what's worse is that we haven't seen an official statement from a head of state about it. So either Obama, Cameron and Hollande have a super secret plan, or - and this is more likely- they have no plan at all, like in 2003. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.htmlquote:Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal The American media is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Oh, I don't know, you got me. This is probably the most annoying thing in this thread. Any time any opposition is raised or tough questions are asked, someone always pops up to basically accuse them of supporting Assad/Ghadaffi/Mubarak/whoever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Well yeah, but I hope you got my point. The point of the cruise missile attacks should be to put the fear of God into every military officer and NCO that if they knowingly or unknowingly fire chemical weapons that that their military unit will be erased.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Don't do this, please. I'm just asking to at least have a more complex opinion than 'TURN THE DESERT INTO GLASS'. This is a complex issue that will effect a lot of people and which doesn't have a good track record, historically speaking. At the very least we should make sure we're not just blindly rushing into something again, so even if we gently caress up, we'll be able to say that we did the best we could. Why don't you give an alternative plan instead of nothing then. Because doing nothing is a poo poo thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:after Assad sees his poo poo burning, he will stop gassing children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
I'd assume the entirety of the plan is just "Hit Assad's assets with missiles and do enough damage such that he thinks twice before using chemical weapons and maybe gets serious about locking down his control over said weapons". The consequences of chemical weapons getting used and not provoking a response is that they might just start using them regularly, since it would be established that there's no risk of reprisal. They might not have done much damage yet relative to two years of brutal civil war, but if they became a regular part of the conflict the death toll would likely ratchet up quite fast. That much, at least, makes sense to me. Keeping chemical weapons taboo worldwide is in everyone's interests, both to keep them from being used and ensure that those states that have them keep a firm grip on them rather than leaving them unsecured. If his response is to use more of them, I imagine they'll just bomb his assets even harder until he gets the message or collapses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Why don't you give an alternative plan instead of nothing then. Because doing nothing is a poo poo thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Don't do this, please. I'm just asking to at least have a more complex opinion than 'TURN THE DESERT INTO GLASS'. This is a complex issue that will effect a lot of people and which doesn't have a good track record, historically speaking. At the very least we should make sure we're not just blindly rushing into something again, so even if we gently caress up, we'll be able to say that we did the best we could. It's not support but yes if you're taking the stance of 'well let's not do anything this time' you're telling him and everyone like him 'hey don't worry when we say poo poo like this is unforgivable, we were full of poo poo, gas freely'. Comstar posted:I was wondering when the evil femme fatale would show up. You still need a princess to rescue though. Uh, read the title, Caro is clearly his damsel in distress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Another civil war? Isn't the current one plenty enough? If anything he's referring to the (quite likely) possibility of rebel fracturing and ethnic cleansing in the coastal areas should Assad's government fall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:No poo poo, it almost seems that a few cruise missiles will make Assad repent, resignate and open a bright future of peace and harmony for Syria. You appear guilty of only mild hyperbole: Nenonen posted:Stop being a pedantic rear end for the sake of being a pedantic rear end. There have been plenty of arguments made, you just don't agree with them. For the record, how's this: after Assad sees his poo poo burning, he will stop gassing children. Is that enough of an improvement to you? Planning is for nerds. CommieGIR posted:Lets assume there is some high level intel we do not have that Obama does. Its not Bush this time so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now Notbush=turn off mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
I'm really curious what would happen if Assad right now produced a scapegoat general and said, "I'm sorry, world, this was a fuckup. We won't be using chemical weapons again. Have this man's head. Can we forget about it, so that I can go back to killing my citizens with normal weapons again?" This would be the ideal solution for both Obama and Putin, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Is anyone taking Iran's threat to the US against Israel seriously or no?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Fixed that for you. The point of intervention isn't to stop the mass killings, it's to reinforce the taboo that the West has declared on NBC weapons. We don't care how many unarmed civilians they kill as long as they only do so using Western-approved weapons like guns and bombs and artillery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:54
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:Don't do this, please. I'm just asking to at least have a more complex opinion than 'TURN THE DESERT INTO GLASS'. This is a complex issue that will effect a lot of people and which doesn't have a good track record, historically speaking. At the very least we should make sure we're not just blindly rushing into something again, so even if we gently caress up, we'll be able to say that we did the best we could. Nobody advocating intervention is suggesting a total strike or total war. But, Israel says they have communications intercepts, the US agrees and the UN is certain that beyond a shadow of a doubt a chemical attack was carried out, the only people arguing that it was the rebels and nothing should be done is Russia (who is currently comitting raids in their own country against the gays), China, and Iran (who always loves making baseless threats against the US). The only people who are against some sort of action in the US are literally accepting evidence from conspiracy theorists and people who advocated for the invasion of Iraq!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nobody advocating intervention is suggesting a total strike or total war. R. Mute posted:fyi, my position is that there should be an intervention, but that it should have a lot more thought and planning behind it than what's currently being proposed. As long as there isn't a believable plan on the table, I think supporting an intervention is just dangerous and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The only people who are against some sort of action in the US are literally accepting evidence from conspiracy theorists and people who advocated for the invasion of Iraq! That's not true. Many people are thinking that if the only reasons the strikes are going to happen is a. to save Obama's face and b. to reinforce a taboo against chemical weapon use, then the strikes are a bad idea. Some think the strikes could be a good idea if there were evidence they would bring, on balance, something substantially good to the people of Syria - and are asking for that evidence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
meristem posted:That's not true. Many people are thinking that if the only reasons the strikes are going to happen is a. to save Obama's face and b. to reinforce a taboo against chemical weapon use, then the strikes are a bad idea. Then the better question would be: Those who are against strikes, how would you send the message that the US and other western countries frown ipon the use of chemixal weapons? Sanctions? Blockade? No-Fly zone? The people against action keep expecting basically full on war plans, which most of us who support action do not even have the intel nor the resources to estimate or plan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:04 |
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:South Korea was a dictatorship from more-or-less from partition until 1987; the North is a dystopian failed workers' state. Any future reunification will be nowhere near as easy as Germany's -- Germany's was itself not all that easy. Literal millions of civilians died in the conflict. It almost led to the use of nuclear weapons. North-South relations have been an international relations trigger point since partition, So all of Korea could live in a dystopian failed workers' state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:08
|
|
