Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

E:already posted in Eastern Europe thread, ignore

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Kurnugia posted:

i mean, the argument about exactly why assad is a really big bastard has been topic of intense and intensely boring debate in this thread on avarege about 20 billion times per second for the past 10 years, and during that time the question of "so loving what if he is" has been answered only by the very braeve members of the something genocidally awful john bolton fan club. you know, the guys who think that iraq was a bit of a fuckup but only because we didn't kill enough people from the getgo to terrorise the populace into submission

there's never any conclusion or point to arguing about how much of a baddie gaddafi, saddam or the thousand other formerly american allied dictators were, since the end result is always "regime change" by the americans and more death than anything that those guys could ever have possibly achieved throughout their reigns. though I guess that is the point. assad is a baddie, therefore the american empire can now expand to syria. of course solely with the aim of bringing democracy and human rights to absolutely loving no-one

Where in this thread is the John Bolton Fan Club located, exactly? Because I've yet to see anything remotely like that.

"There's no point in discussing how murderous murderous dictators are/were" is a hell of a take.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

I must have been reading too much 19th century Russian history lately because I half expected Russia to suddenly shout "ONWARD TO TSARGRAD" at one point over the past few days.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Vasukhani posted:

What makes you think the Russians and Turks are enemies in this?

I didn't, it was more that the whole thing is so hosed I can almost half imagine that happening. And like I said, I've been up to my eyeballs in 16th-19th century Russian history lately, so it rubbed off.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Orange Devil posted:

According to the Russians the Israelis use civilian airliners as cover to carry out air strikes on the regular.

And we should believe anything the Russians say why, exactly.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Al-Saqr posted:

I don’t know if you guys caught this, but a gigantic deal is being inked out between china and Iran that will basically give Iran a permanent economic lifeline in exchange for being and Economic/Military Protectorate of China.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1282077216248074245?s=21

Well I guess that means they won't need to roll out pretend fighter jets in an effort to "scare us" anymore.

China has supplied the IRIAF on a limited basis before, mind.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Randarkman posted:

As far as I know this is a myth. Alot of stuff that is exported (by any country) is often equipment that is being phased out or otherwise older patterns, but it is not deliberately produced lovely and produced solely for export.

In the Soviets case this was somewhat true. They weren't deliberately produced poorly, no, but they were often downgraded in terms of equipment fit compared to what was built for the home market.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

V. Illych L. posted:

this is an explanation which only serves to further complicate the motivations here without accounting for any of the observations in question

for this to be plausible you would have to demonstrate that iran is directly controlling the houthis to the degree where they themselves have no effective agency and also you have to show why iran would want to do this, which self-evidently has nothing to do with the ongoing war in gaza

Can you demonstrate that the discount taliban actually have any interest in what's happening in Gaza, other than claiming they do

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Nonsense posted:

You insult them and they've thrown every invader out on their rear end. Do not underestimate them, the United States obviously has until now allowed vital shipping lanes to fall victim to them. The Biden administration has expanded this Gaza conflict, a terrible decision for the region.

I will call batshit crazy fundamentalist denizens of the loony bin whatever I drat well want to, thanks. Calling them what they are is not the same as underestimating them.

And frankly, I don't think any nation, in any era would look kindly upon some random group of fanatics lobbing missiles at passing ships, regardless of the stated reason.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

V. Illych L. posted:

my position is that this spectrum of postures is functionally the same posture. if the organisation's political base and backing is premised on it supporting palestine - and as far as i can tell it is at least in part - then it doesn't matter if the politburo members in their hearts care about palestine at all. in practice, the organisation is sincerely pro-palestine. if the americans brought israel to heel, i think that the houthis would bang their chests and claim at least partial credit regardless of their actual assessment of the situation, and cease their blockade. whether this is because they sincerely believe in this stuff or because they've lost their political cover is not really relevant imo. they have tied their attacks on shipping explicitly to palestine, so it would be a hard sell to back down without some movement on the palestinian issue. if they get their stated demand, it's hard to keep provoking the americans for no obvious reason. this is similar to any other organisation exerting power.

what i'm objecting to is the idea that it's somehow childish or naive to believe that the houthis' activities are meaningfully connected to what's going on in palestine.

Their "political base" is that they have the most guns with which to threaten the population into submission.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

V. Illych L. posted:

so you think the timing of prosperity guardian is completely random, then, or what?

What would the alternative explanation be

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

adebisi lives posted:

If that were true the US wouldn't be bombing them.

And your basis for this assertion is what, exactly.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

adebisi lives posted:

The Biden administration has demonstrated it is willing to let a regional conflict spin out of control rather than condemn Israel and cease aiding the genocide. The Houthis are enacting a blockade to combat the genocide and the US bombing of Yemen is an escalation to the conflict where Biden is doubling down on support of Israel. I'm not taking it for granted that Biden would be willing to indefinitely bomb Yemen unless the blockade is threatening Israel's ability to keep murdering Arabs.

The democrats would rather get swept out by the republicans by destabilizing west Asia than even talk about making aide to Israel conditional!
The connection between the houthis and what is happening in Gaza appears to exist almost exclusively in the minds of the houthis, and in the minds of people thousands of miles away on the internet, so far as I can tell.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Esran posted:

But it sounds like you're saying the Houthis are really terrible at for-profit piracy, because they're not managing to actually capture ships this way,
Applying that thinking fairly, you might also conclude that it would be good if the Houthis didn't shoot missiles at lightly crewed giant floating warehouses, because they might eventually hit a person, but that would be pretty far down the wishlist.

So the lives of sailors in this region have less value to you, is what you're saying.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Esran posted:

This post is transparent trolling.

The hypothetical death of sailors in the region (there have been zero so far, and this has been happening for months) should not be given the same weight as the actual real tens of thousands of corpses created by the Israeli terrorist regime, no. I would think that was obvious.

Also why did you quote two completely unrelated sentences from my post?

The Houthis are firing heavy weaponry at any ship that happens to pass by. The fact that they have failed to hurt anyone thus far doesn't change the fact that they're doing the same thing you are accusing the IDF of doing, and yet somehow it's acceptable because they're too much of a Keystone Kops force to actually hit anything?

If human life is precious, then it is precious, regardless of who and where it is, and any kind of violence against it should (in any internally consistent ideology) be considered abhorrent.

But you are suggesting that it is acceptable to menace the lives of random sailors because a bunch of religious fundamentalists claim that they're doing it to save people in Gaza. Instead of, I dunno, trying to send actual aid to people in Gaza, or assist in negotiations that might equally assist those people in a meaningful way.

Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 20, 2024

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

Esran posted:

This is very cute, but someone who actually believed this would focus on the much greater crime of the genocide which has actually resulted in more than 25000 deaths and which is still going on right now, and not spend all their time wringing their hands about the death of a sailor that might occur at some point in the future, if bad luck strikes.

When this kind of pacifist absolutism is deployed only to condemn the enemies of the West, and curiously absent when it's the West doing the murdering, it's obviously not worth engaging with.

To put this in terms you should understand: If someone breaks into a discussion about WW2 to condemn the British for bombing German cities because violence is wrong, but they have nothing to say on the Holocaust, then I don't consider their moral reasoning to be sound.

So you won't trust criticism of one side unless that person also explicitly criticises the other side.

Which is not generally a thing people do in discussions about one subject, because it's, you know, irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The fact that I criticize the Houthis is not related to whatever my opinions may or may not be on Israel, believe it or not.

You may as well condemn me if I criticise Stalin and fail to say that Nazis are bad.

E:and if I recall, the criticism of those Allied bombing operations frequently comes from the political left, weirdly enough. Imagine that.

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007


And these relate to stopping Israel's actions in Gaza how precisely?

Never mind that it ignores the very real issues raised regarding food supplies in Northeast Africa?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Plastic_Gargoyle
Aug 3, 2007

E:forget it

Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Mar 7, 2024

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply