|
PT6A posted:I didn't say this. I said I don't want you unsupervised on the street if you're ill enough to be talked into bombing things. Mental health treatment would be better than imprisonment. Wait, don't you advocate bombing Daesh?
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
sliderule posted:Wait, don't you advocate bombing Daesh? Yes, but I don't think we should do it piecemeal by sending civilians over to do it themselves, but rather by the military as part of prosecuting a war against Daesh. If you don't see a significant difference between the bombing of military targets as part of a war, and bombing bits of infrastructure as part of a terrorist attack, then you're hosed in the head. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Right, I forgot we had those bombs that exclusively destroy military targets and won't detonate when civilians are nearby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
I just saw a picture of Brian Jean on the television, talking about the new carbon tax. He is not a handsome man, and his opinions are also incredibly defective and make me angry. gently caress this province, all of our politicians are bad and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Right, I forgot we had those bombs that exclusively destroy military targets and won't detonate when civilians are nearby. How do you suggest we prosecute a war against a threat like Daesh with absolutely no civilian casualties?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How do you suggest we prosecute a war against a threat like Daesh with absolutely no civilian casualties? Well, we start by assigning chaperones to all the bomber pilots. Can't have them walking the streets alone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm saying it would be dumb as gently caress to make it a revenue-neutral tax when there is literally no reason why that's a good idea. Absolutely those funds collected should be put toward things like public transit, instead of handed back out in the form of random other tax cuts. To clarify my earlier post: they're either criminally stupid for making it revenue-neutral, or a bunch of lying bastards for saying it's revenue-neutral when it's not. Either way, I hope they gently caress right off sooner rather than later. Energy taxes are regressive, they punish poor people who pay a higher percentage of their wages towards gas, heat and electricity. It would essentially be a reverse progressive income tax where the poor are paying a higher marginal tax rate like we're doing in Ontario. They said they're going to rebate some of the money to the poorer 60% and use the rest to do green stuff. At $20/tonne, it's not meant to be a huge tax, just a behavioral nudge. Increasing government revenue via energy tax is a roundabout way to tax poor people and good on Notley for resisting the temptation. I think that's how lefties see it anyway, they lose me at the point where they don't build nuclear plants. PT6A posted:I'm kind of pissed off that a bunch of loud, stupid malcontents managed to push the government into this over nonsensical concerns over TERRORISTS! being admitted as refugees. Wait, are you suggesting that Trudeau caved to pressure from the facebook conservatives to alter his policy? That's worse than the policy itself. Who are these malcontents who had any strength with which to push the government? My theory is that bringing in 25,000 people in 6 weeks is pretty unrealistic. Considering their usual screen takes many months, they can reneg on their promise or roll the dice. They're doing the latter and trying to stack the odds in their favor. I'm amazed they had the balls to discriminate against the men, it would have been easy to just say "Hey, we're bringing over the most vulnerable people, children, and the parents attached to them" and excluded single women as well and not looked like as big of dicks (not to mention hypocrites cause it is 2015 and we don't discriminate based on gender anymore). I think it sets a pretty bad example too. If all the other countries start doing the same thing, you're going to end up with a pile of young, angry men. I hope Norway or one of the other progressive hero states admonishes us. Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
quote not edit, ug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Well, we start by assigning chaperones to all the bomber pilots. Can't have them walking the streets alone. Can we also have them read bedtime stories to their pilots out of Richard Scarry's Big Book of Allied Transponder Codes? That'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
is this leaving out specifically unmarried/childless dudes, or just men that are trying to come on their own? If a single dude signs up with his siblings, are they rejected? Or his parents?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:My theory is that bringing in 25,000 people in 6 weeks is pretty unrealistic. Considering their usual screen takes many months, they can reneg on their promise or roll the dice. They're doing the latter and trying to stack the odds in their favor. I'm amazed they had the balls to discriminate against the men, it would have been easy to just say "Hey, we're bringing over the most vulnerable people, children, and the parents attached to them" and excluded single women as well and not looked like as big of dicks (not to mention hypocrites cause it is 2015 and we don't discriminate based on gender anymore). It's also possible that they're bringing in people who have already been screened but who the previous government didn't want to admit, or who have been screened by other countries like the US but who had already filled their refugee quotas and didn't want to admit more. Treating the Liberal promise to bring in 25,000 refugees as if the process to vet and screen refugees only began on their first day of office is a little naive since it ignores the realities of bureaucratic continuity between governments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Energy taxes are regressive, they punish poor people who pay a higher percentage of their wages towards gas, heat and electricity. It would essentially be a reverse progressive income tax where the poor are paying a higher marginal tax rate like we're doing in Ontario. They said they're going to rebate some of the money to the poorer 60% and use the rest to do green stuff. At $20/tonne, it's not meant to be a huge tax, just a behavioral nudge. Increasing government revenue via energy tax is a roundabout way to tax poor people and good on Notley for resisting the temptation. I think that's how lefties see it anyway, they lose me at the point where they don't build nuclear plants. It's not just screening that takes time, once we know we are bringing people here we will need time to setup plans with provinces and municipalities to effectively deal with them. I think this is where we will let these people down immensely, where we just bring them here and have them wait for basic supplies and whatnot. For instance having them rely on our food drives and food bank systems which are already pushed beyond capacity in some municipalities, like Fort McMurray, is bad planning. vyelkin posted:It's also possible that they're bringing in people who have already been screened but who the previous government didn't want to admit, or who have been screened by other countries like the US but who had already filled their refugee quotas and didn't want to admit more. Treating the Liberal promise to bring in 25,000 refugees as if the process to vet and screen refugees only began on their first day of office is a little naive since it ignores the realities of bureaucratic continuity between governments. This is what I heard on one of the CBC Radio One programs from the immigration program director? (title may be different) where they already have a backlog, and he did mention the same thing about women and children, or families only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's also possible that they're bringing in people who have already been screened but who the previous government didn't want to admit, or who have been screened by other countries like the US but who had already filled their refugee quotas and didn't want to admit more. Treating the Liberal promise to bring in 25,000 refugees as if the process to vet and screen refugees only began on their first day of office is a little naive since it ignores the realities of bureaucratic continuity between governments. Hmm maybe. I'm not super familiar with this issue but it looks like the US has accepted 1,800 Syrian refugees since Oct 2014. Counting private sponsorships Canada did 2,302 but only 373 were government assisted. Those numbers don't make me think there's tens of thousands of pre-screened refugees out there but I guess anything is possible. On Sept 10th, Obama promised to take in 10,000 for 2015, 85,000 for 2016 so if he had a bunch ready to go, I think he'd take them? So, for 2015, you have a country with 10 times our resources promising to accept 40% of what we are with almost 4 months to work with instead of 1.5. The numbers and the male discrimination make me inclined to think it was a typical wild Liberal election promise but it's early, we'll see how it pans out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Right, I forgot we had those bombs that exclusively destroy military targets and won't detonate when civilians are nearby. no no no see the difference is, they arent WHITE, therefore, who gives a gently caress if they die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:How do you suggest we prosecute a war against a threat like Daesh with absolutely no civilian casualties? oh yeah baby that hospital is so hot, god you make me so jingoistic, gonna prosecute that war against you like a medieval warlord oh yeah show me that civilian population yeah yeah baby im so jingo right now, greet me as a liberator oh god im gonna invade, im invading IM INVADING UNNNNNNGGGGGHHH
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:oh yeah baby that hospital is so hot, god you make me so jingoistic, gonna prosecute that war against you like a medieval warlord oh yeah show me that civilian population yeah yeah baby im so jingo right now, greet me as a liberator oh god im gonna invade, im invading IM INVADING UNNNNNNGGGGGHHH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD4SL6uwFqc
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about intervening in Syria? Is it because civilians might die(they're already dying and will keep on doing so), or that WE might kill civilians that you're so against intervention? Most of the more populated areas are under Assad control and after the Russians intervening on his side it's pretty clear we won't be engaging with that part of the country. I just want to know why you guys are giving PT6A such a hard time for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Panas posted:Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about intervening in Syria? Is it because civilians might die(they're already dying and will keep on doing so), or that WE might kill civilians that you're so against intervention? Most of the more populated areas are under Assad control and after the Russians intervening on his side it's pretty clear we won't be engaging with that part of the country. He's got emotional problems, man. I mean, apart from pacifism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
What would the endgame be? Either you support Assad, you put him back in power and insurgents try to overthrow him again in six months when he does something assholish, or you depose him, install yet another western-supported elected government and hope it does as well as the one in Afghanistan instead of going as badly as the one in Iraq. I can also see people being really allergic to the idea of sending in ground troops for round... what are we up to now now, seven? of the asymmetric battle between extremist militants and troops with rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Panas posted:Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about intervening in Syria? Is it because civilians might die(they're already dying and will keep on doing so), or that WE might kill civilians that you're so against intervention? Most of the more populated areas are under Assad control and after the Russians intervening on his side it's pretty clear we won't be engaging with that part of the country. Read the Middle East thread. Short of the actual countries participating in this proxy war ending funding for the various groups there is no solution in sight. What are your reasons for being pro-intervention and on which side will you intervene on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Panas posted:I just want to know why you guys are giving PT6A such a hard time for this. PT6A believes that people who are capable of being convinced to detonate bombs shouldn't be allowed on the streets, yet he himself encourages the detonation of bombs with no sense of irony. I'm not giving him a hard time for wanting to intervene in Syria. I'm giving him a hard time for being a narrow-minded, loudmouthed hypocrite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Read the Middle East thread. Short of the actual countries participating in this proxy war ending funding for the various groups there is no solution in sight. If we ended the insane maze of funding and proxy wars, do you think Syria would then simply pull itself out of the insane situation it's currently in and stabilize? No, we need to do that and combine it with military intervention with only two sides: Daesh and everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
sliderule posted:PT6A believes that people who are capable of being convinced to detonate bombs shouldn't be allowed on the streets, yet he himself encourages the detonation of bombs with no sense of irony. And I'm saying you're a lunatic for not being able to draw a distinction between terrorism and allied military intervention in an armed conflict between (even self-declared) states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If we ended the insane maze of funding and proxy wars, do you think Syria would then simply pull itself out of the insane situation it's currently in and stabilize? No, we need to do that and combine it with military intervention with only two sides: Daesh and everyone else. The enemy of my enemy is still kind of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And I'm saying you're a lunatic for not being able to draw a distinction between terrorism and allied military intervention in an armed conflict between (even self-declared) states. killing a lot of people for living in the place where the political class are opposed to you sure sounds like armed conflict between states
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
jsoh posted:killing a lot of people for living in the place where the political class are opposed to you sure sounds like armed conflict between states If it were mainly focused on military targets, you might have a point. Daesh is demonstrably not interested in following the rules of war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And I'm saying you're a lunatic for not being able to draw a distinction between terrorism and allied military intervention in an armed conflict between (even self-declared) states. bombing us: terrorism bombing them: not terrorism what about this is so hard to understand, you lunatic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:If it were mainly focused on military targets, you might have a point. Daesh is demonstrably not interested in following the rules of war. sounds like everyone else involved in the conflict
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:And I'm saying you're a lunatic for not being able to draw a distinction between terrorism and allied military intervention in an armed conflict between (even self-declared) states. Yes it's very important to discern, when analyzing the site of a bomb explosion which ruined critical infrastructure and killed civilians, whether or not the intent of the attack was to induce terror. You see, when a state does it, it's not terrorism, even if it has the exact same effect! This is an important distinction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
sliderule posted:Yes it's very important to discern, when analyzing the site of a bomb explosion which ruined critical infrastructure and killed civilians, whether or not the intent of the attack was to induce terror.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:There actually is a distinction between sabotage and terrorism. I'm sure that's comforting to all involved when the outcomes are the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
its extremely important that a lawyer says its ok when you kill civilians for living in the wrong place
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I can see there's just no talking to you people about this issue. Bye for now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
How about the fact that Daesh had started multiple times that military intervention is what they want since it fuels recruitment? It's not like we're suggesting a Marshall plan equivalent to help rebuild afterwards. Without a long term strategy for stability all bombing does is help maintain the chaos groups like Daesh need to function.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
sliderule posted:I'm sure that's comforting to all involved when the outcomes are the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:One generates less casualties than the other. a) When counting wholes, the correct word is "fewer". b) I am talking about a hypothetical where the casualties are exactly the same. Besides that, I'm curious: which bombs are the terrorist ones? The ones that kill more people, or the ones that kill fewer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Wait, are you suggesting that Trudeau caved to pressure from the facebook conservatives to alter his policy? That's worse than the policy itself. Who are these malcontents who had any strength with which to push the government? It must be a coincidence that Trudeau changed his policy exactly as all these shadow cabinet ministers have been going to the press and conservative social media pressure has been brought to bear. I seem to remember someone positing that the conservatives - and conservative social media in particular - had "virtually no power" after the October election, but I just can't remember who posted that... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:How about the fact that Daesh had started multiple times that military intervention is what they want since it fuels recruitment? It's not like we're suggesting a Marshall plan equivalent to help rebuild afterwards. Without a long term strategy for stability all bombing does is help maintain the chaos groups like Daesh need to function. I'm in favour of a modern equivalent to the Marshall plan for that region; as we've seen with Europe, I think it could actually usher in an era of reasonable prosperity, and I think alongside prosperity, there would be increasing secularism which is another great thing (perhaps the pernicious influence of the Saudi regime and their imams could be wholly eliminated from the region at the same time!). The problem is: the Marshall Plan could not have worked when WW2 was still ongoing. Any kind of serious nation-building in Syria and Daesh-controlled areas of Iraq cannot begin until Daesh simply ceases to be, and I don't see a non-military strategy for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Panas posted:Just out of curiosity, what's so bad about intervening in Syria? Is it because civilians might die(they're already dying and will keep on doing so), or that WE might kill civilians that you're so against intervention? Most of the more populated areas are under Assad control and after the Russians intervening on his side it's pretty clear we won't be engaging with that part of the country. The biggest issue is that we have two perfect examples from the last fifteen years of large-scale military interventions making their region somehow even worse, more violent, less stable, and less secure than it was before. Afghanistan is still fighting what's essentially a civil war now, 14 years later, and Iraq for a long time was essentially a failed state under military occupation, and still lacks any kind of strong central governance or security apparatus 12 years later. The biggest problem with Western military intervention is not the intervention itself (the Taliban are bad, Saddam Hussein was bad, and ISIS are also bad; the world will not be a worse place for any of those people being removed from power) but the lack of any kind of political drive to actually follow through once the military campaign is over and rebuild the destroyed country into a functioning state. We know full well that the West's military could wipe out ISIS a hundred times over. Any one Western country could probably wipe out ISIS's central military and government institutions in short order if we really decided to go in 100% like the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. This of course is ignoring, for the sake of argument, the fact that what ISIS wants more than anything else is for the West to invade them, and we shouldn't give them what they want. The problem is what happens next. We lack any political will to sink billions of dollars into rebuilding a country once we've gone in, done our oorah-military-thing, and destroyed all its institutions. Do you know the reason why ISIS has any level of popular support at all? It's because they're providing functioning political and social institutions where there were none before. The people may not like everything ISIS is doing, but the fact that they're putting police on the streets, operating hospitals, and employing people in their military and civil service means a lot of people are willing to overlook the horrible things they do because it's better than living in the middle of a warzone. If we go in, destroy those institutions again and then leave without rebuilding them, all that's going to happen is we're going to create a power vacuum again and someone equally bad or worse is going to fill it and five or ten years from now we're going to be facing down calls for a fourth Iraq War because ISIS 2.0 took over. I, personally, and I think most people who are against direct military intervention in the form of bombs, are not against it because of potential civilian casualties, even though those are obviously something we should avoid at all costs. ISIS are horrible and should be eliminated, period. But they have to be destroyed in a way that doesn't create a power vacuum in the region, and that is going to take a long time and be much less clean and immediately gratifying than dropping bombs on things, especially because bombing things is a perfect way to destroy institutions in the first place. The most effective thing we can do to defeat ISIS in the long term is to rebuild regions that are retaken from ISIS territory, and to strengthen the regional actors that we can remotely stand so that they can occupy that territory and hold it. For Canada, that means humanitarian aid to refugees, logistical support to rebuild infrastructure, and military support for ground forces like the Kurds that can actually take and hold territory--and to Trudeau's credit, these are the kinds of commitments he's actually proposing Canada make. Bombing from the air is no way to actually defeat ISIS without an equivalent commitment to a) ground forces to take and hold territory from them; and b) logistical and humanitarian support to rebuild that territory. Otherwise we'll just occasionally blow up a hospital or school and then get bewildered when ten years from now the people of this region are supporting a new horrible pseudo-state because they reopened hospitals and schools and actually bothered to govern the territory. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
To be fair, my favoured approach is the exact opposite of the approach that was taken in the Iraq war (removing Saddam Hussein). The international community has to support Assad at least until we have shovel the rest of the poo poo down to shoe level. Then we can deal with a political transition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 18:37
|
|