|
Hell yes. War between nato members !
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hell yes. War between nato members ! Good news! ...for Jeb!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
florida lan posted:welcome to 2019, where loving john bolton is the reasonable voice in the room re us foreign policy in the middle east lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hell yes. War between nato members ! fascist thunderdome
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Hell yes. War between nato members ! Greece looking eagerly at Thrace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Turkey vs US-Russia is the 90's movie I didn't know I needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Commander Abuela would have nuked Russia by now, while Turkey rampaged through northern Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
So I've read back a few pages to try and answer this question and mostly failed, and I'm sorry if it comes across as concern troll-y or if it's an extremely well-tread topic, but do leftists on the internet support Assad solely because the forces arrayed against him are either Western/Israeli/Saudi Proxies, hardline fascists, or both? It seems like he is loving terrible, but given my entire lens of the conflict is either twitter or US media I know my view is distorted. I see "The Lion Assad" memes all over the place and I'm wondering if it's because he's good, because the rebels are all loving scum, or if it's just a Hail Satan kinda thing to piss off liberals. Sorry 4 bein ignorant 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 14:40
|
|
|
idk if assad is good in any way, but he is certainly better than the outcome of western imperialists overthrowing his government as happened in libya or iraq or afghanistan or the billion other places the united states has couped
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:00
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:So I've read back a few pages to try and answer this question and mostly failed, and I'm sorry if it comes across as concern troll-y or if it's an extremely well-tread topic, but do leftists on the internet support Assad solely because the forces arrayed against him are either Western/Israeli/Saudi Proxies, hardline fascists, or both? It seems like he is loving terrible, but given my entire lens of the conflict is either twitter or US media I know my view is distorted. I see "The Lion Assad" memes all over the place and I'm wondering if it's because he's good, because the rebels are all loving scum, or if it's just a Hail Satan kinda thing to piss off liberals. The rebels are all Islamists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
The core of the argument is that the US should not intervene (or I suppose, should stop intervening) in Syria, and not even the spectre of Assad having "gassed his own people" is supposed to tip that scale, because the US can and will only ever make things worse. That's on top of the fact that the so-called "moderate rebels" simply don't exist (anymore). To turn this around and claim that, therefore, leftists think Assad is a Good Guy, is a deliberate twisting of the issue to paint an anti-war position as being in favor of chemical attacks on civilians, or as taking marching orders from Vladimir Putin or whatever. That people have also adopted this mantle wholeheartedly anyway and post The Curse of the Lion Strikes Again at liberals is loving with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:12
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:So I've read back a few pages to try and answer this question and mostly failed, and I'm sorry if it comes across as concern troll-y or if it's an extremely well-tread topic, but do leftists on the internet support Assad solely because the forces arrayed against him are either Western/Israeli/Saudi Proxies, hardline fascists, or both? It seems like he is loving terrible, but given my entire lens of the conflict is either twitter or US media I know my view is distorted. I see "The Lion Assad" memes all over the place and I'm wondering if it's because he's good, because the rebels are all loving scum, or if it's just a Hail Satan kinda thing to piss off liberals. Assad is a bad guy who gasses people. The only thing the Syrian Opposition had to do was look better than Assad, who is an IRL version of an 80s anime villain. They failed to do even that - from 2012 onwards the opposition has either been vicious, sectarian headchopping Salafis or (less commonly) criminals. As for leftists, I would say most have thrown their weight behind the YPG/SDF (who are by no means completely clean but they are much better than the alternatives) To be honest I’ve seen very little genuine support from leftists for Assad, most acknowledge he’s a pretty lovely guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
So basically the gist of the argument is that Assad sucks but imperialism sucks worse and every entity involved in the Syrian civil war other than Assad is an imperialist puppet? Was there ever a real movement against him in Syria or was it co-opted by the west from the start? PS Thanks for not ripping me apart on this I literally hosed around on google for a bit before posting because I know gently caress all about it
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
qadaffi or saddam hussein weren't good, but that doesn't justify bombing the country into the dust and couping the government. iraq war propagandists would often make the argument that if you opposed the iraq war, that must mean you support saddam hussein. i hope you can see why this argument is a sham.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
It's "The Assad Must Go Curse," you're only cursed if you say Assad must go. This is basic stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's "The Assad Must Go Curse," you're only cursed if you say Assad must go. This is basic stuff. I must say, I’m a big fan of the curse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:So basically the gist of the argument is that Assad sucks but imperialism sucks worse and every entity involved in the Syrian civil war other than Assad is an imperialist puppet? Was there ever a real movement against him in Syria or was it co-opted by the west from the start? The "secular" or "moderate" rebel factions were both beaten by Assad, and also by the more radical Islamist rebels. By 2014, one might say that there wasn't anything left to support, even if you could precisely pin down who those people were and support only them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
I highly doubt there was ever an effective secular opposition to Assad. Maybe in like 2011.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
also the US, saudi arabia, israel, the UK, and qatar were conspiring to secretly support the rebels to overthrow the assad government as early as 2012-2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
important context here is that the united states specifically is alleged to have plotted a military coup in syria during the cold war
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
Let me make it clear that I have no support for US involvement in the middle east, especially our continued support for the apartheid government of Israel, and that even though he's a piece of poo poo who's probably doing it as a prelude to starting a war somewhere else I'm glad Trump is trying to pull resources out of the region. So, essentially the "pro-Assad" stuff I see on the internet is trolling and people mainly just don't want the US to poo poo up another country, I understand that and am 100% on board. On the subject of anti-imperialism, even if there was a strong local socialist opposition to Assad, you guys still wouldn't be in favor of outside forces supporting it, right? Obviously the US or any other capitalist nation would never intervene on behalf of such a group, and in fact would do its best to sabotage it, if not outright engage it in open warfare, so I'm not suggesting that, but say the USSR was still around or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Frond posted:I highly doubt there was ever an effective secular opposition to Assad. Maybe in like 2011. They never had the numbers or the organization to be a real force in their own right from the start, and the primary grievances of the rebellion were sectarian to begin with. Getting people to fight and die for parliamentary democracy is a hard sell. quote:but say the USSR was still around or some poo poo. If the USSR was still around they would have taken their ques from the two communist parties of Syria, which are allied to the Assadist faction in the legislature. The USSR betrayed communists in other countries sometimes for geopolitical reasons anyway. Pener Kropoopkin has issued a correction as of 15:58 on Jan 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:Let me make it clear that I have no support for US involvement in the middle east, especially our continued support for the apartheid government of Israel, and that even though he's a piece of poo poo who's probably doing it as a prelude to starting a war somewhere else I'm glad Trump is trying to pull resources out of the region. So, essentially the "pro-Assad" stuff I see on the internet is trolling and people mainly just don't want the US to poo poo up another country, I understand that and am 100% on board. On the subject of anti-imperialism, even if there was a strong local socialist opposition to Assad, you guys still wouldn't be in favor of outside forces supporting it, right? Obviously the US or any other capitalist nation would never intervene on behalf of such a group, and in fact would do its best to sabotage it, if not outright engage it in open warfare, so I'm not suggesting that, but say the USSR was still around or some poo poo. really leaning into that not concern trolling thing there huh
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:10
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:Let me make it clear that I have no support for US involvement in the middle east, especially our continued support for the apartheid government of Israel, and that even though he's a piece of poo poo who's probably doing it as a prelude to starting a war somewhere else I'm glad Trump is trying to pull resources out of the region. So, essentially the "pro-Assad" stuff I see on the internet is trolling and people mainly just don't want the US to poo poo up another country, I understand that and am 100% on board. On the subject of anti-imperialism, even if there was a strong local socialist opposition to Assad, you guys still wouldn't be in favor of outside forces supporting it, right? Obviously the US or any other capitalist nation would never intervene on behalf of such a group, and in fact would do its best to sabotage it, if not outright engage it in open warfare, so I'm not suggesting that, but say the USSR was still around or some poo poo. A movement that can't survive without outside support has no real prospect of dominating the thunderzone that is Syria on its own. The lesson of Afghanistan (and, for that matter, even Vietnam) is that if a faction can't win unless it's propped up, then there's no point in propping it up because it'll never be able to survive without relying on US soldiers to do all their dirty work. On the other hand, if that faction can win without being propped up by the US, then there's no need for US help - and in fact, US help may even hurt them by making them seem to be Western puppets in a region where there's plenty of local distrust of Western intervention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If the USSR was still around they would have taken their ques from the two communist parties of Syria, which are allied to the Assadist faction in the legislature. The USSR betrayed communists in other countries sometimes for geopolitical reasons anyway. I guess it makes sense that outside powers wouldn't have the best interests of the locals at heart anyway; there's never really going to be a benevolent outside power willing to swoop in and help people liberate themselves for liberty's sake and honestly I feel childish for even arguing hypothetically that such a thing could happen now that I really think about it. Prav posted:really leaning into that not concern trolling thing there huh Am I really being a dick? I'm genuinely ignorant and trying to get straightened out here. I'll just stop posting if it's a problem. Main Paineframe posted:A movement that can't survive without outside support has no real prospect of dominating the thunderzone that is Syria on its own. The lesson of Afghanistan (and, for that matter, even Vietnam) is that if a faction can't win unless it's propped up, then there's no point in propping it up because it'll never be able to survive without relying on US soldiers to do all their dirty work. On the other hand, if that faction can win without being propped up by the US, then there's no need for US help - and in fact, US help may even hurt them by making them seem to be Western puppets in a region where there's plenty of local distrust of Western intervention. I was thinking about Vietnam when I wrote that post, but in the context of China supporting the north against the US-backed south. I ended up not including it in the post though because obviously the US dumped way more resources into Vietnam than any of the communist powers, so even if they did get a little bit of arms and gas from China they still basically won the war themselves. Chillgamesh has issued a correction as of 16:27 on Jan 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:I guess it makes sense that outside powers wouldn't have the best interests of the locals at heart anyway; there's never really going to be a benevolent outside power willing to swoop in and help people liberate themselves for liberty's sake and honestly I feel childish for even arguing hypothetically that such a thing could happen now that I really think about it. As you mentioned, nobody actually intervenes for altruistic reasons, and it kinda sounded like you were fishing for a situation when intervention would be justified, which is a common concern troll tactic. But since you've understood the problem with that line of reasoning, you're cool. Chillgamesh posted:I was thinking about Vietnam when I wrote that post, but in the context of China supporting the north against the US-backed south. I ended up not including it in the post though because obviously the US dumped way more resources into Vietnam than any of the communist powers, so even if they did get a little bit of arms and gas from China they still basically won the war themselves. Yeah, and basically if the US hadn't intervened directly the North would have won the war ten years early. That's the difference we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Let me explain another aspect of this discussion: The Lion Assad memes come from a place of frustration. Leftists have been disingenuously called "Assadists" for opposing intervention and for saying that a lot of the opposition were Western backed Salafists. It's easier to say "The Lion Assad and his wonderful wife Asma, long may they reign" than to earnestly engage with psycho liberals who secretly want to murder everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Also, let me be absolutely clear about something: Gaddafi was an absolute snacc and he never did anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
assad is my daddy and i want to eat his cum
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
I feel like a lot less of a dumbass already, thanks friends!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:I was thinking about Vietnam when I wrote that post, but in the context of China supporting the north against the US-backed south. I ended up not including it in the post though because obviously the US dumped way more resources into Vietnam than any of the communist powers, so even if they did get a little bit of arms and gas from China they still basically won the war themselves. The core problem in Vietnam was that Ho Chi Minh was a popular revolutionary who had beaten French colonialism and driven out foreign rule in a quest for Vietnamese independence, while South Vietnam was an imperial holdover that was imposed on Vietnam by the French and run by a succession of petty dictators who repressed the populace with the US's support. The decisive factor there wasn't the outside support, it was the fact that North Vietnam had the strength and popular support to exist as an independent entity even without foreign backing, and the South didn't. The Viet Minh had made their gains on their own, even fighting off French troops to do so, and were capable of winning both political and military battles without any outside help at all. Meanwhile, South Vietnam was descended from various rump states the French had created to maintain their control in areas where the Viet Minh's control was weak; there was never really a strong popular movement exerting political or military strength in South Vietnam, and the only reason it was even a separate state at all was due to partitions imposed on it by imperial powers looking for ways to weaken Ho Chi Minh. More or less the same thing happened in Afghanistan. Before the US invaded, the Taliban were strong and stable winners who had managed to defeat the Northern Alliance mostly on their own. The US came in and propped up the Northern Alliance, but were never able to change the fact that the Taliban were capable of existing without outside support and the new Afghani government was not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:Was there ever a real movement against him in Syria or was it co-opted by the west from the start? Yes and it was leftist. The issue is leftists fight a lot worse than islamists. (at least when they don' have constant american airsupport.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
I think by 1970 there had been so many internal coups of South Vietnamese leadership they were having trouble finding someone who'd agree to be head of state, because they knew that they'd be coup'd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Also, let me be absolutely clear about something: Gaddafi was an absolute snacc and he never did anything wrong. the virgin pacifist the Chad invader
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Chillgamesh posted:Am I really being a dick? I'm genuinely ignorant and trying to get straightened out here. I'll just stop posting if it's a problem. Your questions are usually what pro-intervention people will do to lead a bunch of people into saying they'd rather have Assad than a US-backed takeover and then pulling the rug out and saying "ah so you support Assad you monsters??" that's why people are a bit hostile. Also check out Wille Tomg's posts about the Syrian Civil War earlier in this thread (I think?) that should both clarify and confuse you at the same time because they do a great job of explaining how complicated the opposition in Syria is, and why opportunists try to pretend there's a clearly delineated "good" opposition that should be supported rather than a dozen fragmented groups, the stronger of the bunch being ISIS, al-qaeda, and adjacent groups. edit: ah yeah, it starts here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3846193&userid=91903&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post491090148
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
HorrificExistence posted:Yes and it was leftist. The issue is leftists fight a lot worse than islamists. (at least when they don' have constant american airsupport.) errrr I wouldn’t say that leftists are inherently worse at fighting compared to islamists (look at kobane). A big problem, at least that I saw when I was there near Deir ez zor, was that the SDF has to rely on a lot of conscripts who really REALLY don’t want to be there. Desertion, self injury and routing became a big problem when we got closer and closer to hajin. Not much they can do about that though because it seemed like to me they had problems with manpower. When the US pulls out for good, they are going to be in deep, deep poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
So the militant group formerly known as Al-Qaeda in Syria appears to be taking over Idlib pretty easily right now. The militias they're fighting, which are mostly openly supported by Turkey, seem to mostly be disbanding or joining them. https://twitter.com/Elizrael/status/1082466016024768513 https://twitter.com/vvanwilgenburg/status/1083042276618715141
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:idk if assad is good in any way, but he is certainly better than the outcome of western imperialists overthrowing his government as happened in libya or iraq or afghanistan or the billion other places the united states has couped I dont think the thousands of Syrian leftists he had summarily executed would agree with your analysis
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:I dont think the thousands of Syrian leftists he had summarily executed would agree with your analysis They can't agree with anything if they're dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
A Typical Goon posted:I dont think the thousands of Syrian leftists he had summarily executed would agree with your analysis Tell me more about how open-air slave markets are a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2019 10:24
|
|