PDA

View Full Version : ISIS


Pages : [1] 2

Southpaw2012
04-02-2015, 09:14 PM
When will it be time to send in troops? I was against ground troops from the start, but U.S. soldiers who have gone over to Syria to help fight say that airstrikes come maybe once a week and the European powers haven't done anything but provide supplies (which is very very little). ISIS now controls over 1/3 of Syria and the savages don't intend to stop anytime soon.

I know sympathizing Democrats hate this because they think (as does the Administration) that ISIS only hates us because they're poor and need jobs, but we are in the middle of a religious war and things will get much worse unless stronger force is taken. ISIS, and groups connected to or who sympathize with them, are systematically eliminating Christians one by one and we care more about punishing our only true ally Israel and rewarding our enemy Iran. My question is, why don't we take off the gloves, send in a massive ground surge, and destroy them? We know Obama doesn't want to do this because his "legacy" is withdrawing the troops which led to this "jv squad" to rise up and rampage across the Middle East.

How long must we wait? Taking over a village and small town in Iraq every month isn't going to destroy ISIS.

Terez
04-02-2015, 09:17 PM
I know sympathizing Democrats hate this because they think (as does the Administration) that ISIS only hates us because they're poor and need jobs...
Where do you even come up with this stuff?

It will be time to send in the ground troops when Congress passes an authorization of force. Republicans control both houses now, and considering how they feel about Obama "overreach", they shouldn't expect him to continue to act on the post-9/11 authorization against Al Qaeda.

Durvasha
04-02-2015, 10:12 PM
... and we care more about punishing our only true ally Israel and rewarding our enemy ...

Why is Israel your only true ally in the world?

Nazbaque
04-02-2015, 10:35 PM
What are you going to rave about when Obama no longer holds the office, southpaw? Will you come up with a new target for your whining or are you going to stop posting here or are you going to complain about Obama through the next however many administrations you and this site live to see?

Frenzy
04-02-2015, 10:35 PM
My question is, why don't we take off the gloves, send in a massive ground surge, and destroy them?
Because that totally worked in Iraq & Afghanistan...

Nazbaque
04-02-2015, 10:36 PM
Posted 5 seconds before you did Frenzy :p

ShadowbaneX
04-02-2015, 10:48 PM
Feel free to sign up with whichever branch strikes your fancy and go over there and lead it yourself.

Terez
04-02-2015, 10:52 PM
What are you going to rave about when Obama no longer holds the office, southpaw?
He has already started on Hillary, in case you hadn't noticed.

Nazbaque
04-02-2015, 11:04 PM
He has already started on Hillary, in case you hadn't noticed.

That was only one thread, Terez. Isn't everyone allowed one moment of unfaithfull behaviour in a relationship?

Terez
04-02-2015, 11:33 PM
He has been going on about Hillary since BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi.

Nazbaque
04-02-2015, 11:39 PM
He has been going on about Hillary since BenghaziBenghaziBenghazi.

Oh but that's just a bit of harmless flirting. It's not like he is serious about her.

The Unreasoner
04-02-2015, 11:54 PM
Why is Israel your only true ally in the world?
Those assholes spy on us more than the French do.

Hey Southpaw, read this. (http://www.rense.com/general31/fnews.htm)

And it's from Fox. The transcript, that is.

SomeOneElse
04-03-2015, 03:45 AM
The problem is that ISIS was brought up mainly by the US to fight Bashar Al Assad. Also it is known that Israel is interested in its existence since they both oppose lebanese Hezbollah and Iran. In fact Israel was helping ISIS by bombing syrian army objects. Keep in mind that ISIS being a jihadi group never took any real action against Israel. That same thing could be said about Al-qaeda which is known to be backed by the USA at least when it was rising in 80s (being in the same stage as ISIS now, but not that powerful). Here I mean real action, something like Hezbollah was doing.
The "revolution" in Libya was, amongst other things, made to free a big volume of weapons that was held by Kaddafi's regime and then transfer it to ISIS to fight in Syria, then, most probably, in Iran and.russian Caucasus and countries like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan after that.
Also there's big money involved in the illegal oil trading which is made through turks and other ways.

So nothing suggests that USA are about to anyhow really harm ISIS. Their operation against it is nothing but an imitation.

GonzoTheGreat
04-03-2015, 04:29 AM
ISIS, and groups connected to or who sympathize with them, are systematically eliminating Christians one by one and we care more about punishing our only true ally Israel and rewarding our enemy Iran.
Why do you want to kill Christians?

I ask, because your idea of who your ally and your enemy is suggests very strongly that you are on the side of ISIS. After all, you call Israel (which has not done anything whatsoever against ISIS) your ally while calling Iran (which has opposed ISIS both with actual ground forces and in other ways) your enemy. So obviously, someone who fights against ISIS is your enemy, and you want those American troops on the ground so that they can start killing Christians too. I wonder why.

Daekyras
04-03-2015, 12:55 PM
"So slide over here
and give me a moment
I've got to let you know
..........
you're one of my kind"

ISIS went away after Michael hutchence died. I didn't even know they'd made a comeback and what's with all this killing Christians stuff? Talk about a departure.

*walks away with fist in the air*

Southpaw2012
04-03-2015, 03:08 PM
https://m.soundcloud.com/josh-blackman-4/isis-immigration-and-4

A great presentation by Josh Blackman- author of Unprecedented- The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare and was rated in Forbes top 30 under the age of 30. Fantastic lawyer and knows his stuff. Had the pleasure of meeting him a few months ago and am having him speak at my school next year.

ShadowbaneX
04-03-2015, 03:56 PM
So, why don't you just post all this crap on your facebook account or on Linked In?

SomeOneElse
04-03-2015, 05:30 PM
ISIS only hates us because they're poor and need jobs, but we are in the middle of a religious war and things will get much worse unless stronger force is taken.

What a lol! Stop supporting these groups like ISIS and after that killing instant people like you were doing in Iraq and everywhere else and there will be no hate against USA at all or it will get down to almost nothing.

Davian93
04-03-2015, 07:52 PM
God, you are such a moron.

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 12:49 AM
"So slide over here
and give me a moment
I've got to let you know
..........
you're one of my kind"

ISIS went away after Michael hutchence died. I didn't even know they'd made a comeback and what's with all this killing Christians stuff? Talk about a departure.

*walks away with fist in the air*

Can someone give Daekyras some rep for this please? It won't let me.

Nazbaque
04-04-2015, 01:09 AM
Can someone give Daekyras some rep for this please? It won't let me.

Done!

I'll remind you now that you are dealing with a *finn.

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 04:33 AM
Done!

I'll remind you now that you are dealing with a *finn.

Thanks Naz. Have some sparklers :)

i'm going to see my current favorite band in concert next week, and they're from Finland. i desperately need the mental downtime, so i'm totally looking forward to it.

i should probably make sure i bring some iron, fire, & musical instruments with me, just in case...

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 04:48 AM
Thanks Naz. Have some sparklers :)

i'm going to see my current favorite band in concert next week, and they're from Finland. i desperately need the mental downtime, so i'm totally looking forward to it.

i should probably make sure i bring some iron, fire, & musical instruments with me, just in case...

Children of Bodom?

You know frenzy, I never pictured you as a metal/punk but to the best of my experience that's finnish music's specialty...

Zombie Sammael
04-04-2015, 11:12 AM
Children of Bodom?

You know frenzy, I never pictured you as a metal/punk but to the best of my experience that's finnish music's specialty...

From what I remember, Frenzy is more metal than an undead version of a powerful wizard who sold his soul to the devil*.

*me

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 01:39 PM
Children of Bodom?
They're cool, but no. I'm seeing Apocalyptica, and i'm going to be that person who's pissed that they're just the opening act for Sixx:AM. (I'm also that person on the fence for them having a full-time lead singer, mostly because it cuts down on the chance to see Christina Scabbia or Corey Taylor drop in for more collaborations).

and i'm totally hijacking this thread, and i'm completely not sorry.

You know frenzy, I never pictured you as a metal/punk
I'm curious as to what you pictured me as. Please do tell. :)

Funny story: i took the name Frenzy back in college when i was a radio DJ, and my show was metal & some industrial. i liked the name, but i used it mostly to fuck with the emo kid who had a goth/ambient show before me & his on-air name was Orpheus. He didn't get it.

From what I remember, Frenzy is more metal than an undead version of a powerful wizard who sold his soul to the devil

That's going in the sig block. :D

Southpaw2012
04-04-2015, 01:45 PM
Obama has finally made a statement regarding the attacks in Kenya and again fails to mention that the victims were targeted because they're Christian. His deliberate attempt to be politically correct and not offend the Islamic faith by denying that radical Islamists are targeting Christians all over the world is disgusting. Our "president" is a pure and utter embarrassment on the world. Pathetic.

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 02:03 PM
I'm curious as to what you pictured me as. Please do tell. :)

Funny story: i took the name Frenzy back in college when i was a radio DJ, and my show was metal & some industrial. i liked the name, but i used it mostly to fuck with the emo kid who had a goth/ambient show before me & his on-air name was Orpheus.

Very clever.

ooh, fun. Another chance for daek to show how bad he is at guessing what other posters are like in real life.

As always, no offence is intended.

frenzy- my usual assumption on the net- you are a man. That lasted a week.

Then, I pictured you as a soccer mom. Working during the day and then incredibly focused on your kids. (One of mine is the age of your eldest so I know what it's like). This made me picture you as a very prim, proper kinda academic. Looks wise: slim, petit and with black hair.

As to how I got to those conclusions, god only knows!!!

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 02:03 PM
One group of people is killing another group of people because that second group of people targeted the first group of people, with lots of civilian casualties on all sides, and our president is an embarrassment because he didn't adequately describe the situation?

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 02:18 PM
One group of people is killing another group of people because that second group of people targeted the first group of people, with lots of civilian casualties on all sides, and our president is an embarrassment because he didn't adequately describe the situation?

Wow, I was so far off I rerailed the topic!!!

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 02:21 PM
ooh, fun. Another chance for daek to show how bad he is at guessing what other posters are like in real life.
But it's so much fun to be completely off-base! i remember when i thought Firseal was an actual human. Yeesh, was i wrong...

As always, no offence is intended.
And absolutely none taken. :) i really like to know how others see me online; it keeps me honest. And anyone who asks that kind of question then gets butthurt by it needs help.

frenzy- my usual assumption on the net- you are a man. That lasted a week.
i get that. a lot. i find it curious and amusing.

Then, I pictured you as a soccer mom. Working during the day and then incredibly focused on your kids. (One of mine is the age of your eldest so I know what it's like).
That's close, but my kids do Longsword instead. My daughter's goal is to wield a claidheamh-mòr.

This made me picture you as a very prim, proper kinda academic. Looks wise: slim, petit and with black hair.
oh geez, i would scare the shite out of you if we met in real life. :p i'm a jeans & flannel & nerdy/inappropriate t-shirt & steel-toed-boot wearing science geek. and i'm kinda tall (172cm) & definitely not petite.

As to how I got to those conclusions, god only knows!!!
it's my mad online disguise ninja pirate superspy skillz.

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 02:23 PM
Wow, I was so far off I rerailed the topic!!!

Sorry, got distracted.

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 02:28 PM
That's close, but my kids do Longsword instead. My daughter's goal is to wield a claidheamh-mòr.


oh geez, i would scare the shite out of you if we met in real life. :p i'm a jeans & flannel & nerdy/inappropriate t-shirt & steel-toed-boot wearing science geek. and i'm kinda tall (172cm) & definitely not petite.


it's my mad online disguise ninja pirate superspy skillz.

you are almost as tall as me!

Long sword classes? I fricking wish I lived in America even more now!

I own a few swords and a claymore is one of them. They look sweet in the den.

As for scaring me in real life- I'm already scared. :)

SomeOneElse
04-04-2015, 02:38 PM
Obama has finally made a statement regarding the attacks in Kenya and again fails to mention that the victims were targeted because they're Christian. His deliberate attempt to be politically correct and not offend the Islamic faith by denying that radical Islamists are targeting Christians all over the world is disgusting. Our "president" is a pure and utter embarrassment on the world. Pathetic.

Lol, who the f is that Obama at all? why should he make statements about anything that took place some 1000s KMs from him and no americans are involved? Probably would be wise of him to just STFU and care more about his own country and people's needs.
So the only disgusting thing is your "president" trying to handle situation somewhere else, while, in fact, his (and thus yours) nation is responsible for that.

The problem is that Obama is actually the biggest terrorist and only Bush may be ever bigger. So no difference republicans or democrats, they all are killers and terrorists.

Southpaw2012
04-04-2015, 02:54 PM
it has become more and more apparent that the Left is at war with Christianity and it's sickening. For example, the Indiana RFRA law. Though I don't think people should be turned away for being gay, a small business has every right to turn away anyone they want. A privately owned business should not be forced to do anything they don't want against their religious beliefs. The Left points out it's the evils of Christianity yet they ignore the news story of the Muslim bakery that turned away the guy who went undercover and acted gay to see their reaction. Of course the Left isn't going to speak out against that because it's a war on Christianity; hence why we are trying to disassociate ourselves from American supporting Israel in favor of American hating Iran, who now has an agreement in place that could potentially lead to weapons for them down the road. What the Left has done is disgusting and is leading to horrible things down the road. That's on top of the racial divide that this administration is creating with their handling of situations that werent race based but they've turned into to try and make whites look racist. It's disgusting.

And unfortunately it's apparently working from the ignorance I see spewed on this site.

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 03:21 PM
i should get a claymore. I have a stone fireplace that extends up to the ceiling, and it'd look badass mounted on it. Maybe it's time to do more than drool over the swords at the Ren Faires...

ShadowbaneX
04-04-2015, 03:22 PM
And if a company doesn't want to hire women, or people of different skin colour, that's fine too?

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 03:24 PM
And if a company doesn't want to hire women, or people of different skin colour, that's fine too?

i'm not engaging anymore, SBX. The young white male christian fetal lawyer feels marginalized by mainstream US society; there isn't any arguing with that.

So.... are you still coming to Frenzy*con?

Ivhon
04-04-2015, 03:31 PM
Im still having fun picturing Frenzy as a demure soccer mom. More, Daek, more!!

Terez
04-04-2015, 03:35 PM
And unfortunately it's apparently working from the ignorance I see spewed on this site.
This site probably has a higher average IQ than anywhere else you go online by a significant margin, including whatever lawyerville you might visit. The funny thing is, I think you know that. But you think we're collectively ignorant despite that.

You'll grow up one day, hopefully. You've got a long way to go.

Nazbaque
04-04-2015, 05:06 PM
ooh, fun. Another chance for daek to show how bad he is at guessing what other posters are like in real life.
Don't sell yourself short. As I recall pretty much the only thing you got wrong about me was my size.

However this:
Then, I pictured you as a soccer mom. Working during the day and then incredibly focused on your kids. (One of mine is the age of your eldest so I know what it's like). This made me picture you as a very prim, proper kinda academic. Looks wise: slim, petit and with black hair.

Prim? Frenzy? On the day she was born Frenzy was less prim than a hardcore dominatrix.

On the subject of our ignorance: 1) It's southpaw saying it so even if we were it would be a case of pot and kettle and 2) As we aren't all that ignorant at least on a collective average it's more like the pot calling a polished silver plate black.

So it's like he is ignorant of our level of ignorance and the irony of it is through the roof, past the clouds and all the way to the stratosphere.

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 05:13 PM
Im still having fun picturing Frenzy as a demure soccer mom. More, Daek, more!!

God I was far away there!

Would you like me to do you? Better watch out with that sorta question!!!

Daekyras
04-04-2015, 05:16 PM
A privately owned business should not be forced to do anything they don't want against their religious beliefs. The Left points out it's the evils of Christianity yet they ignore the news story of the Muslim bakery that turned away the guy who went undercover and acted gay to see their reaction


1. Did the bold bit happen? That's terrible.

2. If it did happen, you would support the muslim bakery southpaw?

Nazbaque
04-04-2015, 05:27 PM
it has become more and more apparent that the Left is at war with Christianity and it's sickening. For example, the Indiana RFRA law. Though I don't think people should be turned away for being gay, a small business has every right to turn away anyone they want. A privately owned business should not be forced to do anything they don't want against their religious beliefs. The Left points out it's the evils of Christianity yet they ignore the news story of the Muslim bakery that turned away the guy who went undercover and acted gay to see their reaction. Of course the Left isn't going to speak out against that because it's a war on Christianity; hence why we are trying to disassociate ourselves from American supporting Israel in favor of American hating Iran, who now has an agreement in place that could potentially lead to weapons for them down the road. What the Left has done is disgusting and is leading to horrible things down the road. That's on top of the racial divide that this administration is creating with their handling of situations that werent race based but they've turned into to try and make whites look racist. It's disgusting.

And unfortunately it's apparently working from the ignorance I see spewed on this site.

You use that word so much that I'm starting to think you get off on it. Is it just the word or is it the feeling as well? Hmmm... now I'm actually not sure if that is a sadistic or a masochistic thing, might even be both.

Gilshalos Sedai
04-04-2015, 05:58 PM
Im still having fun picturing Frenzy as a demure soccer mom. More, Daek, more!!

I had to come in and see it for myself. I'm still giggling.

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 06:13 PM
I had to come in and see it for myself. I'm still giggling.

That's because you're probably either envisioning this:
http://bronxbanter.arneson.name/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/lucy-lawless.jpg
or this:
https://33.media.tumblr.com/70e004628bae4b3c9c72957e55404483/tumblr_mful611oUv1r317bvo1_500.gif

Gilshalos Sedai
04-04-2015, 06:14 PM
That's because you're probably either envisioning this:
http://bronxbanter.arneson.name/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/lucy-lawless.jpg
or this:
https://33.media.tumblr.com/70e004628bae4b3c9c72957e55404483/tumblr_mful611oUv1r317bvo1_500.gif

http://38.media.tumblr.com/35f711ddac2698ee8b1427408f0d4aab/tumblr_n7cw4qhEco1smcbm7o1_500.gif

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 06:21 PM
http://38.media.tumblr.com/35f711ddac2698ee8b1427408f0d4aab/tumblr_n7cw4qhEco1smcbm7o1_500.gif

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4683209/right-o.gif

Gilshalos Sedai
04-04-2015, 06:27 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4683209/right-o.gif

http://image.hdstockphoto.com/pics/premium/thumbs/979/an-angel-s-halo-and-devil-s-horns-isolated-on-white_97936484.jpg

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 06:33 PM
http://image.hdstockphoto.com/pics/premium/thumbs/979/an-angel-s-halo-and-devil-s-horns-isolated-on-white_97936484.jpg

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4619701/angel-and-devil-kronk-o.gif

Gilshalos Sedai
04-04-2015, 06:42 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4619701/angel-and-devil-kronk-o.gif

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10300000/Heavens-Little-Angel-angels-10331193-440-550.jpg

Davian93
04-04-2015, 07:59 PM
Obama has finally made a statement regarding the attacks in Kenya and again fails to mention that the victims were targeted because they're Christian. His deliberate attempt to be politically correct and not offend the Islamic faith by denying that radical Islamists are targeting Christians all over the world is disgusting. Our "president" is a pure and utter embarrassment on the world. Pathetic.

Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

Davian93
04-04-2015, 08:03 PM
it has become more and more apparent that the Left is at war with Christianity and it's sickening. For example, the Indiana RFRA law. Though I don't think people should be turned away for being gay, a small business has every right to turn away anyone they want. A privately owned business should not be forced to do anything they don't want against their religious beliefs. The Left points out it's the evils of Christianity yet they ignore the news story of the Muslim bakery that turned away the guy who went undercover and acted gay to see their reaction. Of course the Left isn't going to speak out against that because it's a war on Christianity; hence why we are trying to disassociate ourselves from American supporting Israel in favor of American hating Iran, who now has an agreement in place that could potentially lead to weapons for them down the road. What the Left has done is disgusting and is leading to horrible things down the road. That's on top of the racial divide that this administration is creating with their handling of situations that werent race based but they've turned into to try and make whites look racist. It's disgusting.

And unfortunately it's apparently working from the ignorance I see spewed on this site.

Yes, it should definitely be legal to discriminate against those filthy queers. Just as Jesus wants us to.

Hold on, I'm gonna quote you everything that Jesus said about gays and gay marriage...

....

Odd...why didn't He mention it during any of His sermons...Southpaw? You're clearly a devout Christian...I mean, your statements here have always been Christlike in their peace and loving for all your brothers and sisters. Why didn't He mention anything about that? I mean, He said a lot of great things about loving thy neighbor and not judging, etc. But why didn't He got into detail about why God wants Gays to burn in hell and not be able to buy flowers or cakes for the weddings? Hmm?

I'm waiting.

BTW, tomorrow is Easter. Maybe you should go ponder the actual meaning of His sacrifice and consider maybe following His teachings rather than cherrypicking one or two lines for the Old Testament and then from Paul's teaching to hate the people you seemingly have to hate in your life. Maybe open your eyes to how messed up your world view really is.

On the gay thing...we could definitely go into all the other things that are banned in that same passage and given the same importance...you know, like wearing clothing with multiple fabrics or eating shellfish or getting a tattoo or attending church within 30 days of having a male child or 60 days of having a female child, etc etc.

You know all that because you're a devout Christian and you follow all those rules exactly...I mean, you'd have to because you're not allowed to say that one sin is greater than another. THAT is actually mentioned in the New Testament so if you want to cherry pick one part of the old covenant, you don't get to pick and choose them...if you are a follower of Christ that is.

Now go get your shine box.

rand
04-04-2015, 08:15 PM
Don't forget the largely unknown 11th Commandment that Jesus added to the others, which states "Though shalt not sell confectionery products to homosexuals." It was deleted during the Council of Nicea, I believe.

Nazbaque
04-04-2015, 09:29 PM
Go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

That's counter productive Dav. If you just want him to die messily, he should use a well maintained chainsaw. If you want him to suffer and perhaps even stay alive, he shouldn't use a chainsaw though something rusty might be suitable.

Personally the most painful thing I can come up with is a sealed glass test tube filled with acid inserted in the victim's rectum. Waiting for them to lose their cool and break the test tube by cleanching their butt is a bit more enjoyable than giving them a kick for some reason. The broken glass tears through the rectal mucosa and the released acid gets into the blood stream. The ideal strength of the acid should be stronger than what the intestines are used to, but not too strong to severily prevent it from spreading through the blood stream.

Now granted Southpaw doesn't merit this kind of exquisite torment, but rusty chainsaws are just too inefficient to be used by anyone or on anyone.

Anyone scared yet?

Frenzy
04-04-2015, 09:48 PM
but rusty chainsaws are just too inefficient to be used by anyone or on anyone.
https://laugraeva.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/challenge-accepted.jpg

Anyone scared yet?
No, but i AM proud.

Gilshalos Sedai
04-04-2015, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by Nazbaque View Post
but rusty chainsaws are just too inefficient to be used by anyone or on anyone.
https://laugraeva.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/challenge-accepted.jpg

Just don't use it on your genitals.

GonzoTheGreat
04-05-2015, 04:16 AM
it has become more and more apparent that the Left is at war with Christianity and it's sickening. For example, the Indiana RFRA law.
Could you please inform me what you see as the specific difference between the kind of discrimination that is now allowed in Indiana and the kind of discrimination that is practised by this terrorist group? Yes, the terrorists kill people instead of baking cakes, but that's the difference between terrorists and bakers, not between the two types of discrimination.

So why should it be right and allowed to perform one kind of discrimination (not catering to mixed race marriages, or gay marriages, or something like that) but not to perform another kind of discrimination (treating people of your own religion differently than people who don't follow your religion)?

As an aside: I haven't seen it actually mentioned, but I suspect that if those Somali terrorists had encountered an outright atheist in that university, then they would have killed him too, even though he was not a Christian. Thus putting the lie to the "war on Christians" meme; it was an attempt to kill non-Muslims.

Daekyras
04-05-2015, 06:36 AM
Just don't use it on your genitals.

I believe "visionary" movie director matthew barney would disagree.

http://www.destrictedfilms.com/uk/hoist.htm

Frenzy
04-05-2015, 03:20 PM
I think Heather would disagree as well.

Davian93
04-05-2015, 09:11 PM
Could you please inform me what you see as the specific difference between the kind of discrimination that is now allowed in Indiana and the kind of discrimination that is practised by this terrorist group? Yes, the terrorists kill people instead of baking cakes, but that's the difference between terrorists and bakers, not between the two types of discrimination.

So why should it be right and allowed to perform one kind of discrimination (not catering to mixed race marriages, or gay marriages, or something like that) but not to perform another kind of discrimination (treating people of your own religion differently than people who don't follow your religion)?

As an aside: I haven't seen it actually mentioned, but I suspect that if those Somali terrorists had encountered an outright atheist in that university, then they would have killed him too, even though he was not a Christian. Thus putting the lie to the "war on Christians" meme; it was an attempt to kill non-Muslims.

ISIS also has a strong history of killing other Muslims, regardless of the major Sunni/Shiite divide. They butcher Sufis, Christians, Jews, Sunni Muslims that don't agree with them, Sunnis that do agree with them, people that look at them wrong, etc etc. They're a band of murderous psychopaths. Its not about religion and for our President to focus on the victims of this particular massacre being Christian would be stupid and ignorant. It would also cast him as a Western Crusader which is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT US TO DO AS IT HELPS FEED THEIR 'US AGAINST THEM' MENTALITY THAT THEY NEED TO GET MORE RECRUITS.


Dumbass (to Southpaw obviously)

ShadowbaneX
04-05-2015, 09:18 PM
i'm not engaging anymore, SBX. The young white male christian fetal lawyer feels marginalized by mainstream US society; there isn't any arguing with that.

So.... are you still coming to Frenzy*con?

I find it slighly annoying that he comes in here, drops a turd and then doesn't even have the curtesy to acknowledge the responses. I mean, shouldn't have have Facebook or Linked In or something where he can do that, and you know, we don't have to pay attention to it?

If he wants to drop his Nuggets of Truth, he's more than welcome to, I just wish he wouldn't do it here...and yes, I'm still coming. I'm looking at flights into San Fran and then I'll snag a ride with Uno & MS down.

eht slat meit
04-05-2015, 09:19 PM
Thus putting the lie to the "war on Christians" meme; it was an attempt to kill non-Muslims.

As an agnostic, or atheist depending on how militant someone's being about the label, I find this a lot more offensive than Muslim on Christian violence, as I'd just soon they all kill each other off and leave the world for the rest of us.

Daekyras
04-05-2015, 09:48 PM
As an agnostic, or atheist depending on how militant someone's being about the label, I find this a lot more offensive than Muslim on Christian violence, as I'd just soon they all kill each other off and leave the world for the rest of us.

I thought about becoming an atheist once but the lack of concrete evidence always holds me back. I don't want to commit to atheism without some solid proof.

eht slat meit
04-05-2015, 11:56 PM
I thought about becoming an atheist once but the lack of concrete evidence always holds me back. I don't want to commit to atheism without some solid proof.

I consider myself agnostic, but I usually just pass myself off as atheist in arguments because it confuses the Bible-bangers and the atheists keep wanting to pull some garbage about agnosticism really being just a form of weak atheism.

Frenzy
04-06-2015, 12:29 AM
if he's going to post "turds" and not coherently argue them, then i'm going to continue spamming the threads with random crap we CAN actually talk about. And humor. And bad puns. And more gif wars with Gilshalos.

Yay! Look at OAK & SJC too & find the one that costs the least. All 3 airports are less than an hour away from me.

GonzoTheGreat
04-06-2015, 04:42 AM
I thought about becoming an atheist once but the lack of concrete evidence always holds me back. I don't want to commit to atheism without some solid proof.
Either you do believe in the existence of one or more gods (and which ones, in that case, and why pick those and not others) or you are an atheist.

One of the main possible reasons for being an atheist is precisely that lack of proof: not proof of the non-existence of gods, but proof for their existence is totally lacking (and is for many types of gods fundamentally impossible to judge for humans).

If you want to oppose ISIS, then promote solar energy, wind energy, energy saving and so on. They and their backers depend entirely on selling oil and gas; if those sales decline and the price falls, they will lose their financial basis. That won't remove all of them, but it will wreck their ability to be a really large scale organisation.

ShadowbaneX
04-06-2015, 03:01 PM
I'll keep those in mind but with San Fran I get a road trip with Uno & MS.

SomeOneElse
04-06-2015, 03:53 PM
If you want to oppose ISIS, then promote solar energy, wind energy, energy saving and so on. They and their backers depend entirely on selling oil and gas; if those sales decline and the price falls, they will lose their financial basis. That won't remove all of them, but it will wreck their ability to be a really large scale organisation.

This bullshit like solar energy doesn't really work. Of course it works but not the way that it could replace oil.
Also the US are one of top exporters of oil nowadays, some people even think that USA wants to strike on KSA because of their cheap oil and that's the reason behind deal w/Iran. With that being said, the US would be first to suffer if no one needs oil while terrorists will still have some other sources (terrorism existed be4 any oil was known though maybe under different names).
So if some one thinks he is with the USA and against ISIS it is the worst idea to promote solar energy because of above reason and that ISIS occupies maybe the most sunny area in the world.

Kimon
04-06-2015, 04:37 PM
I find it slighly annoying that he comes in here, drops a turd and then doesn't even have the curtesy to acknowledge the responses. I mean, shouldn't have have Facebook or Linked In or something where he can do that, and you know, we don't have to pay attention to it?

If he wants to drop his Nuggets of Truth, he's more than welcome to, I just wish he wouldn't do it here...and yes, I'm still coming. I'm looking at flights into San Fran and then I'll snag a ride with Uno & MS down.

Southpaw reminds me of a non-wot board version of felix. Both just spammed the board with what was either nonsense or just trolling, and neither ever responded to any replies to the initial spamming, just dropped a massive pile of garbage, and then ran away. Then a few days later the same. Though in felix' defense, his spamming/trolling was at least more amusing.

Still can't quite decide whether either were/are really trolls. Thinking at least even money odds for felix, and maybe 2-1 for southpaw. Felix wasn't from Illinois was he?

ShadowbaneX
04-06-2015, 05:13 PM
No idea where either was from as I couldn't be bothered to remember or even look to the right where it's usually listed.

That said, at least with Felix, it was related, we discuss the Wheel of Time here and his posts in some way involved that series. Southpaw, he just posts right-wing spam. If for some reason we wanted to hear this BS, we'd go to Fox News and hear/see it for ourselves first hand.

Most of us have no interest in it though, but are interested in other things...which is why we're here, and not elsewhere.

Kimon
04-06-2015, 05:27 PM
No idea where either was from as I couldn't be bothered to remember or even look to the right where it's usually listed.

That said, at least with Felix, it was related, we discuss the Wheel of Time here and his posts in some way involved that series. Southpaw, he just posts right-wing spam. If for some reason we wanted to hear this BS, we'd go to Fox News and hear/see it for ourselves first hand.

Most of us have no interest in it though, but are interested in other things...which is why we're here, and not elsewhere.

Southpaw is from, or at least attends law school in Illinois - probably NIU. Not sure where Felix is from. Southpaw definitely seems like a genuine right-winger, so I doubt he's say Gonzo's alter-batshit crazy-ego, but that doesn't discount the likelihood of him still just being a troll. His posts and the way in which he posts are either indicative of trolling, or else just completely inane, like Felix. Either way the end result is that he is annoying, but the motivation as to why he would bother to continue posting while not bothering to join in any discussion of what he or others post makes more sense if he is intentionally trying to be a dick than if he is genuinely trying to act like a normal participant.

Davian93
04-06-2015, 06:29 PM
This bullshit like solar energy doesn't really work. Of course it works but not the way that it could replace oil.
Also the US are one of top exporters of oil nowadays, some people even think that USA wants to strike on KSA because of their cheap oil and that's the reason behind deal w/Iran. With that being said, the US would be first to suffer if no one needs oil while terrorists will still have some other sources (terrorism existed be4 any oil was known though maybe under different names).
So if some one thinks he is with the USA and against ISIS it is the worst idea to promote solar energy because of above reason and that ISIS occupies maybe the most sunny area in the world.

No, we're an exporter of refined gasoline, not oil...We still use a bit more oil than we produce even with us fracking the crap out of the country thus we're still importing a good chunk of oil every single day.

It's actually against the law to export oil other than under some very limited circumstances.


Why is solar crap exactly? Its fairly environmentally friendly, the cost point has been dropping like a rock and efficiency has been going up quite nicely.

Davian93
04-06-2015, 06:30 PM
Southpaw is from, or at least attends law school in Illinois - probably NIU. Not sure where Felix is from. Southpaw definitely seems like a genuine right-winger, so I doubt he's say Gonzo's alter-batshit crazy-ego, but that doesn't discount the likelihood of him still just being a troll. His posts and the way in which he posts are either indicative of trolling, or else just completely inane, like Felix. Either way the end result is that he is annoying, but the motivation as to why he would bother to continue posting while not bothering to join in any discussion of what he or others post makes more sense if he is intentionally trying to be a dick than if he is genuinely trying to act like a normal participant.

Troll would imply he's doing it for fun and doesn't really believe the crap he's spewing. In this case, I think he's just an asshole.

Kimon
04-06-2015, 06:55 PM
Troll would imply he's doing it for fun and doesn't really believe the crap he's spewing. In this case, I think he's just an asshole.

I'd consider posting for the purpose of acting like an a*s and just trying to get a reaction rather than for the purpose of debate is trolling. Whether or not he believes the bile seems irrelevant. There is a stark difference say between how he and how Res Ipsa posts. Res clearly is conservative, but also clearly not a troll. Can't make that second statement with any certainty about Southpaw. Now does that perhaps just point to a higher degree of immaturity? Sure, but then is it possible to not be immature while trolling. I mean, he's clearly an a*s regardless of whether or not he's a troll.

eht slat meit
04-06-2015, 07:03 PM
If you want to oppose ISIS, then promote solar energy, wind energy, energy saving and so on.

I get it! You're going to stop them from chopping your head off by using weaves of fire, water and wind, right right?

Davian93
04-06-2015, 07:10 PM
I'd consider posting for the purpose of acting like an a*s and just trying to get a reaction rather than for the purpose of debate is trolling. Whether or not he believes the bile seems irrelevant. There is a stark difference say between how he and how Res Ipsa posts. Res clearly is conservative, but also clearly not a troll. Can't make that second statement with any certainty about Southpaw. Now does that perhaps just point to a higher degree of immaturity? Sure, but then is it possible to not be immature while trolling. I mean, he's clearly an a*s regardless of whether or not he's a troll.

True dat. Res is also a pretty intelligent poster who doesn't just spout talking points from ultra RW websites.

Nazbaque
04-06-2015, 10:43 PM
I get it! You're going to stop them from chopping your head off by using weaves of fire, water and wind, right right?

Do they even have the metaphorical sword to do that with? They WANT to do all sort of nasty stuff to a lot of people, but what CAN they actually do to anyone who isn't relatively close by? Sooner or later their economical situation will be a severe limitation for even keeping their own organization in line. Attacking that is the best solution long term as it also hinders those who would rise in their place five years after that organization plus millions of innocents are slaughtered in a war.

eht slat meit
04-06-2015, 11:01 PM
Do they even have the metaphorical sword to do that with? They WANT to do all sort of nasty stuff to a lot of people, but what CAN they actually do to anyone who isn't relatively close by? Sooner or later their economical situation will be a severe limitation for even keeping their own organization in line. Attacking that is the best solution long term as it also hinders those who would rise in their place five years after that organization plus millions of innocents are slaughtered in a war.

Why use a metaphorical sword when a real one will do a credible job on any Jordane, Japanese, American or hell.... just one of those plain old Yazidis or other villagers that happen to get in the way of their multi-national attacks?

Attacking that is utterly meaningless because they have.... zero place in the world energy market. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US does not buy oil from ISIS at all.

Even the Republicans aren't dumb enough to make that claim about Obama.

Ivhon
04-07-2015, 12:16 AM
Even the Republicans aren't dumb enough to make that claim about Obama.

They are. Just haven't thought to do it yet.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-07-2015, 03:17 AM
I'm late to the party but I wanna play toooooooo!


i get that. a lot. i find it curious and amusing.

oh geez, i would scare the shite out of you if we met in real life. :p i'm a jeans & flannel & nerdy/inappropriate t-shirt & steel-toed-boot wearing science geek. and i'm kinda tall (172cm) & definitely not petite.

People often think I'm male too. in real life, having seen my name on a screen but not spoken to me or seen me. It can be incredibly frustrating when they suddenly see me and start baby-talking at me, like a "woman". fuck them, I'm a human being first and my gender has nothing to do with my ability to do my job, and they've just lost all of my respect. Seriously. Just because I like to dress up pretty and wear skirts and high heels, and do my nails and make-up, I'm suddenly stupid? assholes, the lot of them.

ooh, I didn't know you were that tall :D I knew there must be another reason I liked you! I happen to have an obsession with tall people:o

I'm probably compensating for something.

i'm not engaging anymore, SBX. The young white male christian fetal lawyer feels marginalized by mainstream US society; there isn't any arguing with that.

I was playing the new Dragon Age this weekend, and there's dialogues where they do their best to be bigoted; so my character was an elf mage - easy enough, right? but then I wondered, what if I'd picked a human male warrior? What's to be bigoted about that? Would make for a really boring game, where people just disagree with your point, and can't even insult you properly...

I consider myself agnostic, but I usually just pass myself off as atheist in arguments because it confuses the Bible-bangers and the atheists keep wanting to pull some garbage about agnosticism really being just a form of weak atheism. whereas agnostics see atheists as hypocrites, believing in the absence of something with no proof for said absence. :rolleyes:

I *may* be a militant agnostic. Well, more than anything I try my hardest to be consistent within my own values structure, so that kind or rules out all organized religions.

This bullshit like solar energy doesn't really work. Of course it works but not the way that it could replace oil. I think the conversion to fuel is still a bit of a tricky one, but in general, solar energy has huge potential. I recently saw a promo of a solar cell that was transparent - glass. Basically you could have all your windows be solar cells. Now, the efficiency is improving as well, I think it's at 16-17% right now, which is not nearly as good as wind (that's at 60%, but requires a lot more start-investment in steel and generators than solar cells do), but it's increasing.

GonzoTheGreat
04-07-2015, 04:31 AM
Attacking that is utterly meaningless because they have.... zero place in the world energy market. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US does not buy oil from ISIS at all.
I don't think anyone is openly and officially buying oil from them. But selling oil is an important source of income for them. And, of course, a lot of those oil sheiks from the Arabian peninsula (whether Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states) are also rumoured to be financing their brothers in faith.

A major reason why there is now so much Muslim terrorism all around the world is that in the previous decades Saudi Arabia has been financing the spread of their own brand of ultra-conservative Islam to any place that was willing to accept their money. In the 1980s, they provided financing for schools in Pakistan for refugees from Afghanistan; the students then became the Taliban (which actually means "students") after the Soviets left and they could return to their own country. Saudi paid preachers have been recruiting for Al Qaeda and similar groups for a significant time, and in many other places where you find Muslim extremists making trouble you can find this Salafi influence if you just look for it.

So simply buying oil from most of the Gulf states (with the exception of Iran, which has a different brand of religion) does mean supporting ISIS, at least indirectly.

Seriously. Just because I like to dress up pretty and wear skirts and high heels, and do my nails and make-up, I'm suddenly stupid?
Could it be that you have cause and effect switched around here?

I think the conversion to fuel is still a bit of a tricky one, but in general, solar energy has huge potential. I recently saw a promo of a solar cell that was transparent - glass. Basically you could have all your windows be solar cells. Now, the efficiency is improving as well, I think it's at 16-17% right now, which is not nearly as good as wind (that's at 60%, but requires a lot more start-investment in steel and generators than solar cells do), but it's increasing.
Another important consideration is that fossil fuel use is a very mature technology, where it is not at all likely that further improvements would be more than marginal.
Many alternative energy schemes, on the other hand, are still in their infancy, with a lot of room for improvement.

So investing in a new diesel engine won't bring a large return, even if you manage to get it onto the market at all. But investing in some kind of alternative energy could bring a huge return. Of course, any investment is risky, and if you are wrong (or simply don't get it right, which is not quite the same thing) then you may lose your money.

Daekyras
04-07-2015, 08:37 AM
People often think I'm male too. in real life, having seen my name on a screen but not spoken to me or seen me. It can be incredibly frustrating when they suddenly see me and start baby-talking at me, like a "woman". fuck them, I'm a human being first and my gender has nothing to do with my ability to do my job, and they've just lost all of my respect. Seriously. Just because I like to dress up pretty and wear skirts and high heels, and do my nails and make-up, I'm suddenly stupid? assholes, the lot of them.


Sure yks, fucking them will make them respect you!!!

For the record, I do think that every poster is a man until I find out otherwise. I call it the "south east Asia hypothesis". ;)

yks 6nnetu hing
04-07-2015, 10:15 AM
Sure yks, fucking them will make them respect you!!!

For the record, I do think that every poster is a man until I find out otherwise. I call it the "south east Asia hypothesis". ;)

I don't know, sometimes I honestly think that the white straight alpha male could use some well-aimed discrimination and/or violence. This systematic condescending attitude is really fraying my patience. Maybe I should point out that my elbow is at the level of most guy's balls and a stiletto heel CAN penetrate patent leather shoes.

oopsie, me so clumsyyy, sowwy, do you have a boo-boo?

but then I think: violence only begets violence, there must be a better way to stop this... Except I don't know what it would be.

GonzoTheGreat
04-07-2015, 10:42 AM
I don't know, sometimes I honestly think that the white straight alpha male could use some well-aimed discrimination and/or violence.
An understandable sentiment, but unfortunately there's rather a lot of evidence to suggest that it would not help at all.

but then I think: violence only begets violence, there must be a better way to stop this... Except I don't know what it would be.
More violence, of course. I've often argued that most such problems could be solved by the simple expediency of the extermination of humanity. And the Daleks (experts on the subject of extermination) agree with me.

Khoram
04-07-2015, 11:05 AM
Maybe I should point out that my elbow is at the level of most guy's balls and a stiletto heel CAN penetrate patent leather shoes.

Remind me never to stand near you when you're gonna go on a rampage. *shudder*

Davian93
04-07-2015, 11:56 AM
Maybe I should point out that my elbow is at the level of most guy's balls and a stiletto heel CAN penetrate patent leather shoes.


Giggity.

ooh, I didn't know you were that tall I knew there must be another reason I liked you! I happen to have an obsession with tall people

I'm...~does conversion~ 188 cm tall. IIRC, Dai is something like 350 CM tall roughly, right?

Daekyras
04-07-2015, 01:40 PM
I'm...~does conversion~ 188 cm tall. IIRC, Dai is something like 350 CM tall roughly, right?

Bloody tallies.

I am just wondering about that superiority complex that a lot of guys have when it comes to women, where does it come from?

When you watch something like mad men it was a prevailing theme at the time but in modern society it really doesn't stack up to any scrutiny and yet some misguided men still cling to it like a piece of Hull after a shipwreck.

when I see a guy acting like that it always makes me think of Kevin Bacon's character in tremors. Talking down to the female scientist because she wasn't "pretty enough". Despite the fact he was a high school drop out.

Khoram
04-07-2015, 02:40 PM
Giggity.



I'm...~does conversion~ 188 cm tall. IIRC, Dai is something like 350 CM tall roughly, right?

I'm not terribly tall - 5'7" (170 cm), BUT it's perfect for my chosen profession. An inch or two taller may be nice, but 5'7" is perfect to be a military pilot. Especially if I'm placed in a small, one-man fighter. Of course, I'd also be a little short to be a stormtrooper, but I'd much rather be flying an X-Wing than being caught in a space station that was moments away from exploding. :D

Davian93
04-07-2015, 02:52 PM
I'm not terribly tall - 5'7" (170 cm), BUT it's perfect for my chosen profession. An inch or two taller may be nice, but 5'7" is perfect to be a military pilot. Especially if I'm placed in a small, one-man fighter. Of course, I'd also be a little short to be a stormtrooper, but I'd much rather be flying an X-Wing than being caught in a space station that was moments away from exploding. :D

Well, we don't consider one man fighters to be much of a threat...otherwise, we'd have a tighter defense perimeter.


What's the worst that could happen?

Khoram
04-07-2015, 04:42 PM
Well, we don't consider one man fighters to be much of a threat...otherwise, we'd have a tighter defense perimeter.


What's the worst that could happen?

Trench warfare will certainly be a thing again. :rolleyes:

eht slat meit
04-07-2015, 07:00 PM
I don't think anyone is openly and officially buying oil from them. But selling oil is an important source of income for them. And, of course, a lot of those oil sheiks from the Arabian peninsula (whether Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states) are also rumoured to be financing their brothers in faith.


Of course they aren't. ISIS possesses one oil field. Everyone knows they possess it. It's public news. Which means they can't export it safely, can only sell it on the black market, and people won't give them good prices for it. They can't rely on it, and as much as they call themselves a "caliphate", they aren't actually a coherent governmental body with real laws or an economy to reap the rewards of. That's not to say they don't have resources, but... to suggest they are even remotely harmed by investment in various green resources (which are a good thing) is simply pandering to extreme left-wing assholes that exploit murder for political/financial gain.

Funny how much they have in common with the right when you strip away the political bs.

As far as those unnamed oil sheikhs on thep peninsula go, if you're referring to the UAE, both the D and the R were secure enough in their support, or at least neutrality against the United States, that they allowed private military contractors with classified access and privileged information to offer their resources to those nations in defending from the likes of Al'Qaeda and ISIS.

yks 6nnetu hing
04-08-2015, 02:59 AM
Giggity.

I'm...~does conversion~ 188 cm tall. IIRC, Dai is something like 350 CM tall roughly, right? lol, Dai is 2 m, or 199 cm if you want to split hairs. Most Dutchies are quite tall, I think Isa is a remarkable exception to that general rule. Though, one that always makes me feel more at home here :)

I am just wondering about that superiority complex that a lot of guys have when it comes to women, where does it come from?


I think it's often a case of not even realizing they're doing it. It's like manspreading (in public transport, the habit of sitting with legs spread so that the man takes up the most space, while everyone else, particularly women, need to scootch over or cram themselves into a corner). It's a subconscious claiming of territory, good old grayback gorilla claiming their space. When confronted with it, most guys don't realize they were doing it; and they don't think there was anything wrong with sitting like that, however, once confronted with it, most guys will change the way they're sitting. There are only a fraction who will get antagonistic about the whole thing.

But- and here's the rub - most women are physically intimidated by such men, so they generally don't speak up. After all, it's only a small inconvenience, right? So why make trouble, when nobody's really hurt or anything. While other men generally don't even see it's happening; or if they do see it, it doesn't consciously register as "wrong" - it's just a person's quirk, or something. It's "just how they are". Either that, or other men are subconsciously wishing they were that guy, claiming all that space. And so, the issue doesn't really get addressed, except by "that raging bitch-feminist, taking away men's rights"

Now, the most Don Drapery things have become universally Not Done, but society just doesn't change that quickly. Somewhere in our upbringing or tribal memory or even DNA, there still lurks this concept that the stronger one has the right of way; and because the man is stronger than the woman... well.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 08:23 AM
lol, Dai is 2 m, or 199 cm if you want to split hairs. Most Dutchies are quite tall, I think Isa is a remarkable exception to that general rule. Though, one that always makes me feel more at home here :)



I think it's often a case of not even realizing they're doing it. It's like manspreading (in public transport, the habit of sitting with legs spread so that the man takes up the most space, while everyone else, particularly women, need to scootch over or cram themselves into a corner). It's a subconscious claiming of territory, good old grayback gorilla claiming their space. When confronted with it, most guys don't realize they were doing it; and they don't think there was anything wrong with sitting like that, however, once confronted with it, most guys will change the way they're sitting. There are only a fraction who will get antagonistic about the whole thing.

But- and here's the rub - most women are physically intimidated by such men, so they generally don't speak up. After all, it's only a small inconvenience, right? So why make trouble, when nobody's really hurt or anything. While other men generally don't even see it's happening; or if they do see it, it doesn't consciously register as "wrong" - it's just a person's quirk, or something. It's "just how they are". Either that, or other men are subconsciously wishing they were that guy, claiming all that space. And so, the issue doesn't really get addressed, except by "that raging bitch-feminist, taking away men's rights"

Now, the most Don Drapery things have become universally Not Done, but society just doesn't change that quickly. Somewhere in our upbringing or tribal memory or even DNA, there still lurks this concept that the stronger one has the right of way; and because the man is stronger than the woman... well.

When you get down to it, we're really not too far away from our vine swinging cousins of the jungles. As a culture and society that is.

Daekyras
04-08-2015, 08:36 AM
When you get down to it, we're really not too far away from our vine swinging cousins of the jungles. As a culture and society that is.

Mrs daek did an experiment into the whole "alpha male" "alpha phase female" thing a few years ago and found on a micro level that there is no real difference between them. She will kill me for posting that as it merely tips the iceberg of what the experiment was about but it seems relevant.

GonzoTheGreat
04-08-2015, 09:05 AM
When you get down to it, we're really not too far away from our vine swinging cousins of the jungles. As a culture and society that is.
Actually, yes, we are, since it is surprisingly easy for two groups of humans to cooperate on some scheme, even if they just met, while that is virtually unheard of amongst the big apes.

Humans are far better at merging groups, even if only temporarily, then chimpanzees or such. Of course, a fairly common reason for such a merger is to kill off a third group of humans, but I'm sure that when the time comes to write the history of it, it will turn out that they had it coming.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 10:59 AM
Actually, yes, we are, since it is surprisingly easy for two groups of humans to cooperate on some scheme, even if they just met, while that is virtually unheard of amongst the big apes.

Humans are far better at merging groups, even if only temporarily, then chimpanzees or such. Of course, a fairly common reason for such a merger is to kill off a third group of humans, but I'm sure that when the time comes to write the history of it, it will turn out that they had it coming.

We have all the same tribal conflicts, we're just a little less permanent in our divisions perhaps. I think ISIS is showing just how apeish we can be when we want to be as a species.

Or we could just ask the Neanderthals...

GonzoTheGreat
04-08-2015, 11:44 AM
ISIS is actually a good example of something none of the other apes would do: have total strangers unite and form an instant bond with other merely because of an idea.

And the Neanderthals obviously fall in that "third group" category.

Nazbaque
04-08-2015, 11:52 AM
It's a very common idea among people that the bad people are somehow closer to animals. The first irony is that no animal could ever reach the monstrosity of an adult human being. The second irony is that the people who don't realize this are all the closer to that monstrosity for it.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 11:53 AM
It's a very common idea among people that the bad people are somehow closer to animals. The first irony is that no animal could ever reach the monstrosity of an adult human being. The second irony is that the people who don't realize this are all the closer to that monstrosity for it.

I dont think its limited to "bad" people. Supposed "good" people that want things like executions of "bad" people really aren't any different. They both want to eliminate a perceived threat to their particular tribe.

Davian93
04-08-2015, 11:59 AM
lol, Dai is 2 m, or 199 cm if you want to split hairs. Most Dutchies are quite tall, I think Isa is a remarkable exception to that general rule. Though, one that always makes me feel more at home here :)

Ironically, I came across this article today quite by accident:

Scientists Try To Answer Why Dutch People Are So Tall (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/08/scientists-try-to-answer-why-dutch-people-are-so-tall)

eht slat meit
04-08-2015, 06:54 PM
I dont think its limited to "bad" people. Supposed "good" people that want things like executions of "bad" people really aren't any different. They both want to eliminate a perceived threat to their particular tribe.

I think that when one "perceived threat" aka "bad" person is a sadistic serial killer/rapist and the other "perceived threat" is an otherwise harmless guy that happens to worship a different god, the difference is clear.

Which is probably why religions are so attractive; they're an excuse to be a jackass and have a hundred thousand other jackasses back you up, whereas the serial killer is heading straight to oblivion.

Ozymandias
04-10-2015, 02:17 PM
Because that totally worked in Iraq & Afghanistan...

Yes, it did.

Ozymandias
04-10-2015, 02:22 PM
I think it's often a case of not even realizing they're doing it. It's like manspreading (in public transport, the habit of sitting with legs spread so that the man takes up the most space, while everyone else, particularly women, need to scootch over or cram themselves into a corner).

Firstly, I see women do this almost as often as men. The difference is that men has testicles, and it hurts to squash them between your legs on the subway.

I don't know how many of you are actually New Yorkers, but this is a massively over-reported-on phenomenon. Besides, if I am sitting next to a 300 lbs woman, why does she have a right to more space than I do?

Frenzy
04-10-2015, 05:00 PM
Which is probably why religions are so attractive; they're an excuse to be a jackass and have a hundred thousand other jackasses back you up, whereas the serial killer is heading straight to oblivion.

I think the appeal of religion (and political parties, and rooting for professional sports teams) is groupthink. It's an amazing buzz to get together with a large mass of like-minded people and just lose yourself to the message being presented to you. All you have to do is decide you really like something, and the group energy does the rest of the work.

I went to a concert earlier this week, for a band i really really really like (really really), and i had a moment where i could totally see the parallels.

i fucking hate groupthink. But it was still a kickass concert. :D

Frenzy
04-10-2015, 05:03 PM
Firstly, I see women do this almost as often as men. The difference is that men has testicles, and it hurts to squash them between your legs on the subway.
Does it hurt less to squash them between your legs in other sitting locations?

Khoram
04-10-2015, 05:22 PM
Does it hurt less to squash them between your legs in other sitting locations?

Speaking as a Man, I find that sitting with the legs spread just comes naturally. Especially if sitting in a slouched position.

However, when I'm sitting straight, my knees stay together. Ergo, if men sat as if there was a stick up their ass, there would be no problem.

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2015, 05:27 AM
Does it hurt less to squash them between your legs in other sitting locations?
Why do I get the impression that you're eager to do experiments on this?

Nazbaque
04-11-2015, 06:23 AM
Does it hurt less to squash them between your legs in other sitting locations?

Well technically it's a three way squeese between your legs and the seat. If the seat is of the hard and flat variety, it is a lot more painful than a soft seat or a hard curved seat (assuming the curve is the rightway up. If it's the other it will be painful no matter how much you spread)

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2015, 07:54 AM
I'm not sure it is really necessary to explain to Frenzy what kind of tests to perform. Then again, I'm probably far enough away to be safe from being picked as "volunteer".

Nazbaque
04-11-2015, 08:19 AM
I'm not sure it is really necessary to explain to Frenzy what kind of tests to perform. Then again, I'm probably far enough away to be safe from being picked as "volunteer".

Well now she doesn't need the volunteers for discovering the info I gave her. Some lucky men should be thanking me for being pre-emptively informative.

GonzoTheGreat
04-11-2015, 08:47 AM
You think she will believe you? :eek:

Nazbaque
04-11-2015, 09:04 AM
You think she will believe you? :eek:

Ah but Frenzy likes me. So she will.

Daekyras
04-11-2015, 10:08 AM
Ah but Frenzy likes me. So she will.

It's important in any scientific test for the subject to be calm and relaxed....

Frenzy
04-11-2015, 05:37 PM
Science requires thorough, dispassionate, rigorous testing. But i've been to known to accept tributes...

Kimon
05-15-2015, 08:29 PM
Some distressing news on the ISIS front of late. Today the fall of Ramadi, and in Syria even more depressing clouds on the horizon as ISIS's advance seems aimed directly at one of the region's most impressive archaeological sites, Palmyra. Considering what ISIS did at Nimrod, it seems inevitable that the site will experience both widespread plundering for the black market and the desecration of this once great metropolis.

The BBC has a nice article on Palmyra, replete with some beautiful pictures of the ruins. Hopefully these ruins will still be there next year and not just a memory, well less tangible memory...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32748392

GonzoTheGreat
05-16-2015, 04:52 AM
Don't worry, as Bush informed us years ago already, "Mission accomplished". This is what the USA invaded Iraq for. This is why thousands of American soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of other people) died to achieve.

Ozymandias
05-18-2015, 02:49 PM
Don't worry, as Bush informed us years ago already, "Mission accomplished". This is what the USA invaded Iraq for. This is why thousands of American soldiers (and hundreds of thousands of other people) died to achieve.

You are aware that ISIS has been spreading in the wake of the American retreat, right?

Bush was an idiot and planned poorly, but its tough to blame this on him. Obama ran on a platform of pulling out of Iraq, and he did so. Fine. But to blame the intervention for what happened after a president not named Bush began setting policy on President Bush is a little ridiculous.

Half the archaeological sites in Iraq & Iran are off limits to scientific inquiry anyway because Saddam turned them into giant minefields.

Davian93
05-18-2015, 03:08 PM
To be fair, Iraq kicked us out...barring an overthrow of their gov't, we weren't staying past the date that Bush negotiated anyway.

Kimon
05-18-2015, 05:04 PM
You are aware that ISIS has been spreading in the wake of the American retreat, right?

Bush was an idiot and planned poorly, but its tough to blame this on him. Obama ran on a platform of pulling out of Iraq, and he did so. Fine. But to blame the intervention for what happened after a president not named Bush began setting policy on President Bush is a little ridiculous.

Half the archaeological sites in Iraq & Iran are off limits to scientific inquiry anyway because Saddam turned them into giant minefields.

I think the larger issue is whether Iraq can really be a cohesive state without an authoritarian strongman holding the three constituents (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd - mostly Sunni, but still an obvious subset that was mistreated even by the Sunni strongman, Saddam) together. Saddam did, albeit by oppressing two of the three. Still, his hand, while heavy, created a safer and stabler state for all three than what came after.

Could we have held it together for longer had we stayed? Perhaps, but once we left I see little chance of the same slide not starting immediately. The Shia whom we set in power refused to share power with the Sunni, or even really with the Kurds, and instead aligned overtly with Iran. The Sunni had little choice but to rebel under the circumstances, and would have done so regardless of when we left. Note for instance the fall of Ramadi. Many of the Sunni tribes appealed to the Shia govt in Baghdad asking for arms so that they could fight ISIS themselves. They had to ask for arms, as it was clear that the Shia haven't prioritized defending Ramadi and Anbar, as it is mostly Sunni, and so essentially have let it fall. Moreover, because they mistrust the Sunni tribes even when they resist ISIS, they refused to send them arms, arms which we gave them by the way. So the Sunni are essentially left with bad choices. Fight a futile struggle against ISIS, and probably get tortured and killed as an example. Surrender to Iran, which let's face it is what aligning with Baghdad essentially means at this juncture. They seem to have tried that, and the Iranian puppets in Baghdad told them to sod off. Or they can surrender to ISIS and pray that ISIS doesn't kill them anyway.

The fact though that Baghdad refuses to help them would seem to destroy any real chance of this remaining one country, something which should have been recognized during the decision to remove Saddam originally. Could our continued presence have changed this? Not under Bush. He favored the Shia, letting them oppress the Sunni and beginning this problem. Could Obama have stayed but tried to reverse that mistake? Sure, but for how long? A hundred years? Longer? How much more money would you have wasted to avoid the still inevitable once we leave.

Ozymandias
05-18-2015, 05:58 PM
I think the larger issue is whether Iraq can really be a cohesive state without an authoritarian strongman holding the three constituents (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd - mostly Sunni, but still an obvious subset that was mistreated even by the Sunni strongman, Saddam) together. Saddam did, albeit by oppressing two of the three. Still, his hand, while heavy, created a safer and stabler state for all three than what came after.

Could we have held it together for longer had we stayed? Perhaps, but once we left I see little chance of the same slide not starting immediately. The Shia whom we set in power refused to share power with the Sunni, or even really with the Kurds, and instead aligned overtly with Iran. The Sunni had little choice but to rebel under the circumstances, and would have done so regardless of when we left. Note for instance the fall of Ramadi. Many of the Sunni tribes appealed to the Shia govt in Baghdad asking for arms so that they could fight ISIS themselves. They had to ask for arms, as it was clear that the Shia haven't prioritized defending Ramadi and Anbar, as it is mostly Sunni, and so essentially have let it fall. Moreover, because they mistrust the Sunni tribes even when they resist ISIS, they refused to send them arms, arms which we gave them by the way. So the Sunni are essentially left with bad choices. Fight a futile struggle against ISIS, and probably get tortured and killed as an example. Surrender to Iran, which let's face it is what aligning with Baghdad essentially means at this juncture. They seem to have tried that, and the Iranian puppets in Baghdad told them to sod off. Or they can surrender to ISIS and pray that ISIS doesn't kill them anyway.

The fact though that Baghdad refuses to help them would seem to destroy any real chance of this remaining one country, something which should have been recognized during the decision to remove Saddam originally. Could our continued presence have changed this? Not under Bush. He favored the Shia, letting them oppress the Sunni and beginning this problem. Could Obama have stayed but tried to reverse that mistake? Sure, but for how long? A hundred years? Longer? How much more money would you have wasted to avoid the still inevitable once we leave.

Maybe the yet-larger issue is if we should care? All of these arbitrary post-colonial demarcations in both Africa and the Middle East are stupid, anyway, and counterproductive.

Obviously the issue here is that one group has oil and one doesn't (and the Kurds are perfectly happy to go their own way as an semi-autonomous federal state), but maybe the Iraqi's should self-determine that? I think that is a large part of the value of our intervention into Iraq; we gave the Iraqi people the chance to decide for themselves what they want, or if they even want to be "Iraqi" any more. It is somewhere paternalistic and (racist?) to just sort of assume that they are incapable of creating a multi-ethnic democratic state, as you do in your first paragraph, but if that is the case, then let them decide.

The Kurds are doing a fine job of fighting off ISIS, so perhaps we should just acknowledge that the Sunni western regions of the country just aren't interested in truly resisting ISIS.

Kimon
05-18-2015, 07:40 PM
Obviously the issue here is that one group has oil and one doesn't (and the Kurds are perfectly happy to go their own way as an semi-autonomous federal state), but maybe the Iraqi's should self-determine that? I think that is a large part of the value of our intervention into Iraq; we gave the Iraqi people the chance to decide for themselves what they want, or if they even want to be "Iraqi" any more. It is somewhere paternalistic and (racist?) to just sort of assume that they are incapable of creating a multi-ethnic democratic state, as you do in your first paragraph, but if that is the case, then let them decide.


Calling this paternalistic is ironic as we toppled their leader, and installed a government, hoping that it would be more amenable to our wishes. Is that not paternalistic? As for the Kurds, we have resisted giving them either full autonomy or full control over the revenue or sale of their oil out of fear that this might antagonize Turkey, who has a sizable and restless Kurdish minority of their own. Is that racist?

Iraq is broken, Ozy. Is it odd to wonder if it cannot be mended?

Davian93
05-18-2015, 08:39 PM
Maybe the yet-larger issue is if we should care? All of these arbitrary post-colonial demarcations in both Africa and the Middle East are stupid, anyway, and counterproductive.

Obviously the issue here is that one group has oil and one doesn't (and the Kurds are perfectly happy to go their own way as an semi-autonomous federal state), but maybe the Iraqi's should self-determine that? I think that is a large part of the value of our intervention into Iraq; we gave the Iraqi people the chance to decide for themselves what they want, or if they even want to be "Iraqi" any more. It is somewhere paternalistic and (racist?) to just sort of assume that they are incapable of creating a multi-ethnic democratic state, as you do in your first paragraph, but if that is the case, then let them decide.

The Kurds are doing a fine job of fighting off ISIS, so perhaps we should just acknowledge that the Sunni western regions of the country just aren't interested in truly resisting ISIS.

Personally, building on what you and Kimon have said, I blame the French and Brits for this mess. This is 100% on them for their colonial idiocy before and after WWI. I believe it was then-Senator Biden that said a 3 state solution was the only one that makes sense but that runs into Syria, Turkey (the biggest obstacle) and Iran being adamantly against an independent Kurdistan for various reasons. The Turks have had hegemony over the Kurds for a long long time and they're not about to give up 1/3 of their country to an independent state...and that would be the next step in self-determination in the region if Kurdistan becomes a reality. The kurds got a real shit sandwich when they were dealing out boundaries at Versailles.

If we accept a breakup along those lines, of course, we've given the Sunnis over to ISIS (completely our fault there for creating both the vacuum and the training ground for extremism after 10 years of war) and we've given the Shiites over to Iran (not ideal for various reasons for us). The Saudis would be pissed at anything that strengthens Iran as they are the two biggest rivals for power in the region and in Islam in a struggle that has gone on for a good 1300 years now.

Its a shitty situation with no winning moves.

Davian93
05-18-2015, 08:41 PM
Calling this paternalistic is ironic as we toppled their leader, and installed a government, hoping that it would be more amenable to our wishes. Is that not paternalistic? As for the Kurds, we have resisted giving them either full autonomy or full control over the revenue or sale of their oil out of fear that this might antagonize Turkey, who has a sizable and restless Kurdish minority of their own. Is that racist?

Iraq is broken, Ozy. Is it odd to wonder if it cannot be mended?

It can't be fixed. And the biggest obstacle with Kurdistan for us is the Turks. We cannot screw over our ally...especially one of that strength and influence in the region. They are the one secular state in the region that is a real ally...the last thing we want to do is give their growing religious right any more ammunition to pull away from the West.

GonzoTheGreat
05-19-2015, 03:48 AM
You are aware that ISIS has been spreading in the wake of the American retreat, right?Yes. I am also aware that Al Qaeda only made any kind of appearance in Iraq after your Marines paved the way for Bin Laden to get any influence there. And, of course, there's also the fact that a major part of the core of ISIS is a bunch of former officers in Saddam's army. Who you pissed off by firing them en masse, and who then got a beautiful opportunity for a second career as terrorists because you hadn't bothered to disarm that army before sending it home without pay.

Bush was an idiot and planned poorly, but its tough to blame this on him. Obama ran on a platform of pulling out of Iraq, and he did so. Fine. But to blame the intervention for what happened after a president not named Bush began setting policy on President Bush is a little ridiculous.Bush chose to engineer a situation in which sectarian divisions would be far more important than any other kind of political issue.
There could have been a huge debate in Iraq over whether or not to privatise all sorts of things that had been nationalised under the semi-socialist Baath party. But Bush chose to dump that possibility and sell off anything the Iraqi had, so that this wouldn't be an issue. In order to make sure that the Americans would get away with this, they officially continued Saddam's policy of banning the Communist Party.

All that Obama did was actually keeping the promise that Bush had made, and withdrawing the troops when they had been scheduled to do so. Maybe you can fault him for not asking Congress to declare war upon Iraq, but I'm not clear on what grounds for such a war you envision.

Half the archaeological sites in Iraq & Iran are off limits to scientific inquiry anyway because Saddam turned them into giant minefields.
True, but while that does stop archaeologists, it won't stop Islamic fundamentalists.

Nazbaque
05-19-2015, 05:56 AM
Personally, building on what you and Kimon have said, I blame the French and Brits for this mess. This is 100% on them for their colonial idiocy before and after WWI. I believe it was then-Senator Biden that said a 3 state solution was the only one that makes sense but that runs into Syria, Turkey (the biggest obstacle) and Iran being adamantly against an independent Kurdistan for various reasons. The Turks have had hegemony over the Kurds for a long long time and they're not about to give up 1/3 of their country to an independent state...and that would be the next step in self-determination in the region if Kurdistan becomes a reality. The kurds got a real shit sandwich when they were dealing out boundaries at Versailles.

Well it would certainly be a different world if they had left the northern half to the Spanish.

GonzoTheGreat
05-19-2015, 06:39 AM
Well it would certainly be a different world if they had left the northern half to the Spanish.
Yeah, based on the evidence, the Dutch would have swindled the Spanish (and the Portuguese) out of the lot eventually, so then Fidel Castro would've been a Dutch speaking Communist. I do wonder in what way Quebec would've been weird, though.

Ozymandias
05-19-2015, 06:32 PM
Yes. I am also aware that Al Qaeda only made any kind of appearance in Iraq after your Marines paved the way for Bin Laden to get any influence there. And, of course, there's also the fact that a major part of the core of ISIS is a bunch of former officers in Saddam's army. Who you pissed off by firing them en masse, and who then got a beautiful opportunity for a second career as terrorists because you hadn't bothered to disarm that army before sending it home without pay.

Was it smart to dismiss every Ba'athist, essentially the entire government, en masse? Of course not.

On the other hand... you just fought a war to remove arguably the most repressive dictatorship in human history from power. You know you won't be there forever. Is the solution really to leave a whole bunch of said dictator's henchman in charge of what will be the only armed force in the country once gone?

Again... there was no good solution. Better ones? Yes. But it was just as reasonable to wary of a bunch of senior Saddamist officers staging a coup as it was to assume that the Iraqi's themselves would have seemingly no inclination to resist a foreign military occupying a third of their country.

Bush chose to engineer a situation in which sectarian divisions would be far more important than any other kind of political issue.

That is just not true. Your unreasoning hatred for GWB is out of control. He didn't "engineer" that situation. It existed before he ever got there, before he was ever born. Bush was constrained by the fact that he had to act within previously drawn national boundaries, and that the country was already geographically divided along heavy ethno-sectarian lines. And, unfortunately, to divide the country into three essentially autonomous districts would impoverish a third of the country. Overcoming cultural, religious, or ethnic differences is incredibly difficult. The US fought a war far more devastating to resolve such regional issues. Our own treatment of ethnic minorities is nothing to write home about.

None of which is to say it isn't GWB's fault, but at some level conflict was inevitable. Not on this scale, perhaps... but this is a multicultural nation with literally no history of self-rule being thrown headfirst into representative democracy. Is it ideal? No... but Winston Churchill took apart that complaint well enough.

There could have been a huge debate in Iraq over whether or not to privatise all sorts of things that had been nationalised under the semi-socialist Baath party. But Bush chose to dump that possibility and sell off anything the Iraqi had, so that this wouldn't be an issue. In order to make sure that the Americans would get away with this, they officially continued Saddam's policy of banning the Communist Party.

All that Obama did was actually keeping the promise that Bush had made, and withdrawing the troops when they had been scheduled to do so. Maybe you can fault him for not asking Congress to declare war upon Iraq, but I'm not clear on what grounds for such a war you envision.


That is dishonest and you know it. He ran on an anti-Iraq War platform. Whether or not he was honoring a previous President's promises, he campaigned on the same issue with the same attitude.

Davian93
05-19-2015, 07:42 PM
Its a bit dishonest...perhaps. He campaigned on a lot of things and went back on them once he was in the big seat. Its possible he might have changed his mind on Iraq too. We did try to renegotiate the Use of Force agreement with the Iraqi gov't under him to stay longer so its possible he didn't want to go through with the pullout.

Lots of things change once you're in the big chair and have access to ALL the info.

Ozymandias
05-20-2015, 03:07 PM
Its a bit dishonest...perhaps. He campaigned on a lot of things and went back on them once he was in the big seat. Its possible he might have changed his mind on Iraq too. We did try to renegotiate the Use of Force agreement with the Iraqi gov't under him to stay longer so its possible he didn't want to go through with the pullout.

Lots of things change once you're in the big chair and have access to ALL the info.

I mean... either pulling out of Iraq was the right decision, in which case Bush was just as right to order the withdrawal as Obama was in honoring that order, or it was the wrong decision, in which case he very much is in the wrong for making an irresponsible decision.

Most likely, its a very gray area and Obama felt obliged to honor his promise to the American people who elected him largely on his stance on the Iraq War.

Davian93
05-20-2015, 03:11 PM
I mean... either pulling out of Iraq was the right decision, in which case Bush was just as right to order the withdrawal as Obama was in honoring that order, or it was the wrong decision, in which case he very much is in the wrong for making an irresponsible decision.

Most likely, its a very gray area and Obama felt obliged to honor his promise to the American people who elected him largely on his stance on the Iraq War.

Neither staying or going was a good decision...that's what happens when you make a really bad decision like invading Iraq as it leaves you with nothing but bad options. Much akin to jumping on a tiger's back for a ride.

I would bet you are probably right though on the pressure to honor that promise given that it would have seriously hurt him for reelection (well if the GOP had run a non-clownshoes opponent at least) and killed the Dems even more than they already were killed in 2012 & 2014.

Ozymandias
05-20-2015, 04:04 PM
Neither staying or going was a good decision...that's what happens when you make a really bad decision like invading Iraq as it leaves you with nothing but bad options. Much akin to jumping on a tiger's back for a ride.

I would bet you are probably right though on the pressure to honor that promise given that it would have seriously hurt him for reelection (well if the GOP had run a non-clownshoes opponent at least) and killed the Dems even more than they already were killed in 2012 & 2014.

Maybe part of the reason they lost is because their candidates for many positions were weak and their outreach wasn't great (and also that the GOP has mastered gerrymandering to a far greater degree than Democrats, of course).

And I stand by the stance that the Iraq War was a net positive in the world. Perhaps not directly for the United States (though I dispute this as well), but at the very least its long overdue that the US exert its force int he world for a moral purpose that doesn't necessarily benefit Americans, as supposed to acting the part of evil hegemon deposing benign, elected governments over dubious ideological differences.

Again, not planned or handled well, but well worth the effort.

Kimon
05-20-2015, 04:54 PM
Palmyra has fallen. Probably the most impressive archaeological site in Mesopotamia and the Levant - with the possible exception of Petra, which luckily is a bit beyond their scope, at least as yet. Definitely at least the most impressive in extent and extant in Syria. Or at least it was.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32820857

GonzoTheGreat
05-21-2015, 03:56 AM
And I stand by the stance that the Iraq War was a net positive in the world. Perhaps not directly for the United States (though I dispute this as well), but at the very least its long overdue that the US exert its force int he world for a moral purpose that doesn't necessarily benefit Americans, as supposed to acting the part of evil hegemon deposing benign, elected governments over dubious ideological differences.
And what moral purpose was served by allowing Blackwater to shoot up civilians with impunity?

Ozymandias
05-21-2015, 09:27 AM
And what moral purpose was served by allowing Blackwater to shoot up civilians with impunity?

This is, again, ridiculous and beneath you. Shit happened. We all get that. Bringing up a handful of atrocious acts does not somehow invalidate the purpose of our intervention in Iraq. Bad planning post-facto does not mean the original intervention was wrong. Saddam was a psychopath, a ruthless genocidal dictator. Liberating his oppressed chattel from his crime-family state was the moral purpose.

Its like saying that the US Civil War was fought for no moral purpose, because Sherman's soldiers burned Atlanta against orders. You are complaining about losing a single tree against saving an entire forest. In terms of sheer scale, if nothing else, its a price worth paying.

Ozymandias
05-21-2015, 09:34 AM
Calling this paternalistic is ironic as we toppled their leader, and installed a government, hoping that it would be more amenable to our wishes. Is that not paternalistic? As for the Kurds, we have resisted giving them either full autonomy or full control over the revenue or sale of their oil out of fear that this might antagonize Turkey, who has a sizable and restless Kurdish minority of their own. Is that racist?

Iraq is broken, Ozy. Is it odd to wonder if it cannot be mended?

"Toppled their leader" is sort of a nice euphemism for "removed a brutal, genocidal dictator from power". Leader is a word with certain connotations that in no way apply to Saddam Hussein.

As for the Kurds, there are many reasons they have not been allowed to form their own nation-state. Avoiding antagonizing Turkey and Iran is one of them.

Why they haven't gotten full control over their oil resources is a totally separate issue. And an easier one to explain. If we had allowed each ethno-religious enclave in Iraq control over their resources, the minority Sunni would have ended up with no oil, and thus, no revenue at all. The decision was made to try and turn Iraq into a multi-ethnic democracy. Maybe too ambitious, but hardly wrong. The only way to make a federal state system work is to have some sharing of resources, kind of how the liberal coastal citizens in the US subsidize the folks living west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line.

Davian93
05-21-2015, 09:42 AM
"Toppled their leader" is sort of a nice euphemism for "removed a brutal, genocidal dictator from power". Leader is a word with certain connotations that in no way apply to Saddam Hussein.

As for the Kurds, there are many reasons they have not been allowed to form their own nation-state. Avoiding antagonizing Turkey and Iran is one of them.

Why they haven't gotten full control over their oil resources is a totally separate issue. And an easier one to explain. If we had allowed each ethno-religious enclave in Iraq control over their resources, the minority Sunni would have ended up with no oil, and thus, no revenue at all. The decision was made to try and turn Iraq into a multi-ethnic democracy. Maybe too ambitious, but hardly wrong. The only way to make a federal state system work is to have some sharing of resources, kind of how the liberal coastal citizens in the US subsidize the folks living west of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line.

That's pretty much the major one for the past 50-60 years. Before that, it was partially that and partially a feeling of "Who the fvck are the Kurds" mentality expressed by the Great Powers.

The problem with forcing that sort of triparthite gov't on Iraq and using the Bosnia model (a huge mistake in hindsight and probably even beforehand to anyone that actually understood the region) is that they dont have any shared history. They were artifically forced together and they hate each other. You are asking a group (the Kurds) to help subsidize a group that was previously attempting to wipe them off the face of the earth in the Sunni minority. Yes, we know they gassed you and routinely tried to kill you but now you have to pay them back with your oil wealth...we cool? That's like telling a rape victim that she has to live with her rapist and make him dinner every night to keep him happy.

GonzoTheGreat
05-21-2015, 10:02 AM
Bringing up a handful of atrocious acts does not somehow invalidate the purpose of our intervention in Iraq.
First, it was not just a handful of such acts, it was routine.
Second, the issue is not so much that they did it; as you say, shit happens. But deciding to not only let them get away with it, but to openly not bother to do anything at all about that sort of thing, that annoyed a lot of Iraqi. Who then started killing those who annoyed them, of course.

Bad planning post-facto does not mean the original intervention was wrong.
Yes, it does. The bad planning was not an accident, it had been done deliberately that way.
There had actually been better plans available, but a policy decision was taken not to use those.

This was not just a case of "shit happens" but of "shit could have been avoided, but it was decided to let it happen". The resulting mess was a predictable consequence of the way in which the USA chose to prosecute this war.

Al Qaeda was a direct result of blow back from doing the Afghan war (against the Soviets) too cheaply. It is simply not believable that the US government did not know what they were doing when they repeated that mistake on a larger scale in a war of their own choosing. The USA wanted ISIS to appear, and it was obliged.

Ozymandias
05-26-2015, 05:11 PM
The problem with forcing that sort of triparthite gov't on Iraq and using the Bosnia model (a huge mistake in hindsight and probably even beforehand to anyone that actually understood the region) is that they dont have any shared history. They were artifically forced together and they hate each other. You are asking a group (the Kurds) to help subsidize a group that was previously attempting to wipe them off the face of the earth in the Sunni minority. Yes, we know they gassed you and routinely tried to kill you but now you have to pay them back with your oil wealth...we cool? That's like telling a rape victim that she has to live with her rapist and make him dinner every night to keep him happy.

There was no other choice. And the Kurds were willing. Or their leadership, at least. Pretty sure senior Kurds argued against the death penalty for Saddam.

Splitting the country into three would have impoverished the Sunni minority. And antagonized the Iranians and Turks. Not to mention, it might be worth it to prove that a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state that isn't ruled by a tyrannical despotism is possible in the Middle East without serious oppression of the minority groups.

Didn't work out, but again, no better option was available.

GonzoTheGreat
05-27-2015, 05:52 AM
Didn't work out, but again, no better option was available.
There had been the better option of "not let law and order break down completely before starting to make some kind of pretence of fixing it". But Rumsfeld decided not to bother, Bush backed him up, and US Congress wasn't interested in the results of the war they'd sort of authorised. So everything went to pieces, and the most effective response to that came from various sectarian extremists.

By the time that even the neo-cons admitted that some nation-building might be nice, there wasn't a nation left to build.

Ozymandias
06-09-2015, 01:28 PM
There had been the better option of "not let law and order break down completely before starting to make some kind of pretence of fixing it". But Rumsfeld decided not to bother, Bush backed him up, and US Congress wasn't interested in the results of the war they'd sort of authorised. So everything went to pieces, and the most effective response to that came from various sectarian extremists.

By the time that even the neo-cons admitted that some nation-building might be nice, there wasn't a nation left to build.

I've never argued that the execution was deeply flawed. So much so one is right to question whether there was a real plan in the first place.

My point has been that you, and many (most, it seems) others on this board and others, are taking the failed reconstruction effort as post-facto evidence for the folly of the intervention in the first place. That is the premise I disagree with.

No, Al Qaeda wasn't there. But Saddam was passively at least and likely actively supporting international terrorism anyway, and Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, just the one with the best PR.

And you are using a more apt term than you know when you say "nation building". There was no nation to speak of beforehand. Much like Egypt or North Korea or 18th century Prussia or any other despotism, Iraq was an army with a state, not the other way around. The whole place bore more resemblance to a crime family than a nation-state. Iraq had to be built from scratch, a task which no one seemed to realize and for which we were, obviously, woefully unprepared.

Davian93
06-09-2015, 01:47 PM
I've never argued that the execution was deeply flawed. So much so one is right to question whether there was a real plan in the first place.

My point has been that you, and many (most, it seems) others on this board and others, are taking the failed reconstruction effort as post-facto evidence for the folly of the intervention in the first place. That is the premise I disagree with.

No, Al Qaeda wasn't there. But Saddam was passively at least and likely actively supporting international terrorism anyway, and Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, just the one with the best PR.

And you are using a more apt term than you know when you say "nation building". There was no nation to speak of beforehand. Much like Egypt or North Korea or 18th century Prussia or any other despotism, Iraq was an army with a state, not the other way around. The whole place bore more resemblance to a crime family than a nation-state. Iraq had to be built from scratch, a task which no one seemed to realize and for which we were, obviously, woefully unprepared.

So perhaps disbanding that army and letting them leave with their weapons was a mistake and then compounding it by banning anyone with association to the former gov't from ever being involved in the new government. Nah, couldn't be.

Kimon
06-09-2015, 01:48 PM
I've never argued that the execution was deeply flawed. So much so one is right to question whether there was a real plan in the first place.

My point has been that you, and many (most, it seems) others on this board and others, are taking the failed reconstruction effort as post-facto evidence for the folly of the intervention in the first place. That is the premise I disagree with.

No, Al Qaeda wasn't there. But Saddam was passively at least and likely actively supporting international terrorism anyway, and Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist group in the world, just the one with the best PR.

And you are using a more apt term than you know when you say "nation building". There was no nation to speak of beforehand. Much like Egypt or North Korea or 18th century Prussia or any other despotism, Iraq was an army with a state, not the other way around. The whole place bore more resemblance to a crime family than a nation-state. Iraq had to be built from scratch, a task which no one seemed to realize and for which we were, obviously, woefully unprepared.

Why are you so resistant to recognizing that it was a mistake? There is no evidence connecting him to any terrorists but those directly tied to the Palestinian cause. Supporting that is true of essentially every Muslim leader. Nor was he a threat to us. Sure, the Israelis didn't like him, but so what? Him being a potential threat to Israel is not the same as him being a threat to us. There simply was no rational reason for going to war with him.

Think of it this way. Our friend was complaining to us that he had found a nest of wasps, which while not in his actual fields, the occasional wasp that wandered into his fields scared him and his family. He assured us that while he would have preferred to destroy this nest himself, that he remembered his big, and strong (and really dumb) friend, and begged us to take care of it for him. So we (being really stupid) agreed, walked over to the nest, which turned out to be bees, not wasps, but what the hell, we were already there, so we hit the nest a few times with our stick, since, being stupid we figured not attacking it at this point would make us pussies, and then got stung a few thousand times.

Ozymandias
06-09-2015, 05:51 PM
Why are you so resistant to recognizing that it was a mistake? There is no evidence connecting him to any terrorists but those directly tied to the Palestinian cause. Supporting that is true of essentially every Muslim leader. Nor was he a threat to us. Sure, the Israelis didn't like him, but so what? Him being a potential threat to Israel is not the same as him being a threat to us. There simply was no rational reason for going to war with him.

You mean, aside from his harboring known and wanted international terrorists like Abu Nidal? To be willfully ignorant enough that you can sit there and claim with a straight face that Saddam wasn't supporting international terrorists when there is hard evidence that an international terrorist was living in Iraq with the knowledge of the government is astounding.

Second, given Saddam's established pattern of aggressive behavior towards his neighbors in a geographically vital area of the globe to the US, it is impossible to deny that he was a threat to our interests. The suspicion that he was planning further violence in the region was confirmed by his top generals, who after the war admitted that Saddam had been quite open about his desire to restart the war with Iran once the sanctions were lifted.

Third, we have extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence that Saddam was continuing with his weapons program (they have found centrifuges parts and plans buried in the yard of the head of Iraq's nuclear program, and testimonials from government officials again asserting Saddam's intention to restart his WMD program once sanctions ended, again with Iran as a target.

Fourth, and most immediately incriminating... the Iraqi military was involved in active acts of aggression against US and NATO pilots on a daily basis. By which I mean... they were shooting at Americans, almost every day, for over a decade.

No, Iraq did not have the capability to launch a direct attack on American soil. But in every secondary capacity, to harm our interests, to sponsor terrorists who would attack Americans at home and abroad, to destabilize a politically and economically vital area of the globe, and in the realm of pursuing the armaments to pose a true threat to vast numbers of citizens, both global and American, Saddam was as guilty as could be.

Think of it this way. Our friend was complaining to us that he had found a nest of wasps, which while not in his actual fields, the occasional wasp that wandered into his fields scared him and his family. He assured us that while he would have preferred to destroy this nest himself, that he remembered his big, and strong (and really dumb) friend, and begged us to take care of it for him. So we (being really stupid) agreed, walked over to the nest, which turned out to be bees, not wasps, but what the hell, we were already there, so we hit the nest a few times with our stick, since, being stupid we figured not attacking it at this point would make us pussies, and then got stung a few thousand times.

This is the least apt metaphor I can imagine. Here is a better one.

The better version would be: there is a family living down the street with a wasp nest in their house. Instead of hiring an exterminator to take care of the problem, we draped the entire house in netting, preventing the wasps from escaping by condemning the family inside to being stung, every day, without fail, so we could all avoid the unpleasantness and cost of getting rid of the problem once and for all. However, these are smart, socially minded wasps, and any time a wasp that was stinging someone down the street needed a place to hide, they were perfectly willing to allow them to come live in the house with them.

In this (more accurate) version of the analogy, we can still be the big strong neighbor. We got tired of the wasps plotting to escape the net and wreak havoc in the neighborhood, got tired of the wasps that stung us having a place to hide, and ultimately, got tired of the moral perversion of condemning an otherwise innocent family to a lifetime of unrelenting fear and pain simply because we wanted to avoid momentary cost and discomfort.

Davian93
06-09-2015, 05:59 PM
Lots of countries harbor people we might call "terrorists" or people that could theoretically hurt us but we don't invade them. Hell, some of them we call "ally" like Saudi Arabia. Thus, to use that as a rationale to invade is a bit silly since I don't see us invading North Korea or Cuba or China (who just hacked us again this week and we've called that sort of cyber attack an Act of War before)

Kimon
06-09-2015, 06:14 PM
You mean, aside from his harboring known and wanted international terrorists like Abu Nidal? To be willfully ignorant enough that you can sit there and claim with a straight face that Saddam wasn't supporting international terrorists when there is hard evidence that an international terrorist was living in Iraq with the knowledge of the government is astounding.



We've already discussed this concerning Abu Nidal. There is no evidence that he was in Iraq at the behest or under the employ of Saddam. There is better evidence placing him under the employ of Saddam's enemies, hence why Saddam assassinated him.

Second, given Saddam's established pattern of aggressive behavior towards his neighbors in a geographically vital area of the globe to the US, it is impossible to deny that he was a threat to our interests. The suspicion that he was planning further violence in the region was confirmed by his top generals, who after the war admitted that Saddam had been quite open about his desire to restart the war with Iran once the sanctions were lifted.

Why would that bother us? We helped him fight his first war against Iran. And let's be blunt, even if those sanctions had been lifted, which clearly Bush was unwilling to do, Saddam was no longer any match for Iran. If he had, the result would have been exactly what we have a present, an Iranian vassal-state in Baghdad fighting in a civil war against Sunni Baathist leftovers. Except we wouldn't have wasted a few trillion dollars creating the mess and dealing with the aftermath.

Third, we have extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence that Saddam was continuing with his weapons program (they have found centrifuges parts and plans buried in the yard of the head of Iraq's nuclear program, and testimonials from government officials again asserting Saddam's intention to restart his WMD program once sanctions ended, again with Iran as a target.

No there is not. If you're citing that New York Times article that Southpaw kept trying to use as evidence, it's not.

Here's that article again, we've discussed this nonsense ad nauseum in various threads.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Fourth, and most immediately incriminating... the Iraqi military was involved in active acts of aggression against US and NATO pilots on a daily basis. By which I mean... they were shooting at Americans, almost every day, for over a decade.

We were imposing a no-fly zone, the fact that they occasionally tested its efficacy is no more alarming than when the Russians do things like this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32969336

The better version would be: there is a family living down the street with a wasp nest in their house. Instead of hiring an exterminator to take care of the problem, we draped the entire house in netting, preventing the wasps from escaping by condemning the family inside to being stung, every day, without fail, so we could all avoid the unpleasantness and cost of getting rid of the problem once and for all. However, these are smart, socially minded wasps, and any time a wasp that was stinging someone down the street needed a place to hide, they were perfectly willing to allow them to come live in the house with them.

Who cares if the Israelis get stung? It's their problem, not ours. If they want to take on the entire Muslim world again, let them do it alone again. Not sucker us into doing it for them.

Kimon
06-09-2015, 09:53 PM
It seems this escalation is, at least at present, being labelled as advisers rather than ground troops, but even 500 "advisers" seems inadequate to truly accomplish the mission so long as the force being advised is trusted neither by us nor by the Sunni in Anbar, nor have they ever demonstrated an ability to effectively fight on their own, as their, the Iraqi govt's, only ground success so far was when operating under the direct oversight of Iran. I have a hard time believing that this won't eventually lead to the inevitable re-entry of actual ground forces. I'd however make it abundantly clear to Baghdad, that if it comes to that, that if we actually are forced to re-enter the ground war, that Iraq ceases to exist as a single country. That the Kurds get an independent state in the North, which will include Mosul after we re-take it, and in the east, that I would create a new state in Anbar that is a puppet of Riyadh to balance their Iranian puppet govt in Baghdad.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-prepares-plan-to-send-hundreds-more-troops-to-iraq-1433886530

Davian93
06-10-2015, 07:59 AM
I remember (well, a friend of mine, yes lets go with that) being an advisor in a country that shall remain nameless. Well, technically this "friend" was a support personnel for the real advisors but he got to see how it worked. They "adviseed" on all sorts of things. Lots of times, this "advice" would consist of things like "See that militant running there? This is how you eliminate a threat" ~raises weapons and fires a few rounds to kill militant~


I'd imagine this is the sort of "advice" our skilled advisors will soon be giving the Iraqi army.

Honestly though, how the hell are we still "training" the Iraqi army. What the hell were we doing since 2003 with all that training money? Hell, we should have guys in their army that we trained with 10-12 years of service in at this point. What an utter boondoggle.

GonzoTheGreat
06-10-2015, 10:31 AM
I've never argued that the execution was deeply flawed. So much so one is right to question whether there was a real plan in the first place.

My point has been that you, and many (most, it seems) others on this board and others, are taking the failed reconstruction effort as post-facto evidence for the folly of the intervention in the first place. That is the premise I disagree with.
And based upon what actual evidence do you disagree with the premise?

I ask, because I had pointed out on this board (before the invasion started) that there were actually such plans, and I asked which of those plans were actually going to be used. It turned out that Rumsfeld was intend on ignoring them all, limiting the involvement in keeping law and order to protecting the oil ministry.

At the time, my main point against the overthrow of Saddam was that I expected Bush to botch it and thereby make things even worse. That is precisely what happened (though not always as I'd expected, the dismissal of the army with their weapons took me by surprise for instance), and it is getting worse still.

So, given that even before the invasion took place I was arguing that I did not think the post-facto reconstruction would be done good enough and that I've turned out to be basically correct (though to optimistic, I admit), why do you think I can't take the failure of the US Marines to do a good job as evidence that they're failures?

Ozymandias
06-10-2015, 06:05 PM
We've already discussed this concerning Abu Nidal. There is no evidence that he was in Iraq at the behest or under the employ of Saddam. There is better evidence placing him under the employ of Saddam's enemies, hence why Saddam assassinated him.

I don't remember going through this, at all. He arrived in Iraq as early as 1999 but certainly by early 2002, and yet was allowed to remain, unmolested, until late 2002. And you cannot even make the case that they didn't know he was there, because they somehow knew exactly where to find him when they wanted to. Basically every source (not to mention common sense) tells us that he was allowed to remain in Iraq, safely out of the reach of international authorities, until Saddam thought he might collaborate with the Americans.

Why would that bother us? We helped him fight his first war against Iran.

This is kind of stupid moral relativism that pisses me off. Why would we care about a slave state in this day and age, since we had legal slavery until 1863? Using our past mistakes as some sort of panacea excuse for allowing evil actions to continue is just intellectually feeble and unworthy of a serious debate. We didn't allow a whole bunch of Jewish refugees to land on American soil in the prelude to WWII... maybe we should tell world Jewry they're not welcome anymore again, right?

And let's be blunt, even if those sanctions had been lifted, which clearly Bush was unwilling to do, Saddam was no longer any match for Iran.

Whoa whoa whoa. Says who? Just because he was no match for the most powerful military on the planet, doesn't mean he wouldn't have been capable of ensuring a whole lot of death and destruction for another backwards, fanatical regime that treats its citizens like chattel.

If he had, the result would have been exactly what we have a present, an Iranian vassal-state in Baghdad fighting in a civil war against Sunni Baathist leftovers. Except we wouldn't have wasted a few trillion dollars creating the mess and dealing with the aftermath.

This is exactly the attitude that got us into the kinds of ethically fraught relationships with Saddam or Pinochet in the first place. Sometimes, doing something because it is right is worth it, even if its not the best possible option for American interests. Which you cannot even claim, in this case. Saying "let these two regimes fight it out because eh, who cares" is a morally repugnant position.

No there is not. If you're citing that New York Times article that Southpaw kept trying to use as evidence, it's not.

Here's that article again, we've discussed this nonsense ad nauseum in various threads.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

I don't see the relevance. I wasn't referring to chemical weapons, which are and were pretty clearly always remnants from the Iran-Iraq War.

I am referring to the centrifuge parts and plans, unrelated to the degraded chemical weapons, which they found, in exactly the place you'd expect to find such things if Saddam was expecting to create or attempt to create nuclear weapons.

We were imposing a no-fly zone, the fact that they occasionally tested its efficacy is no more alarming than when the Russians do things like this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32969336


Are you joking? If we shot at that plane, or the Russians shot at an American plane openly and unabashedly, it would be an international incident and if it kept happening, would certainly lead to war. The difference between that article and what was happening in Iraq is that SHOTS WERE FIRED. How can you possibly miss that crucial piece of evidence? And even if you want to be blase about it, its still not okay! We all agree that the No Fly Zones were both politically and ethically necessary to prevent genocide and murder. The entire international community agreed, so Saddam's attempts to violate it are as close to an outright illegal use of force as you are likely to get in the realm of international law.

Who cares if the Israelis get stung? It's their problem, not ours. If they want to take on the entire Muslim world again, let them do it alone again. Not sucker us into doing it for them.

It isn't just the Israeli's. As you've comprehensively failed to refute, Saddam was harboring an international terrorist. He was bribing and suborning members of the international community. And he was killing and oppressing his own people, who deserved our help and sympathy.

You are, of course, welcome to the opinion that we should not intervene abroad. But if you think that Saddam did not justify our intervention, then you essentially are saying no intervention is ever justified, whatever the reason. I mean, by your logic, Japan was justified in attacking and killing Americans at Pearl Harbor because the US had unilaterally imposed economic sanctions on them for their aggression in the Far East in the 1930s. How is that ANY different than Iraq in 2003? Foreign nation aggressively attacks and conquers its neighbors. Said regime commits numerous crimes against humanity, against civilian populations that are at least nominally US allies. US responds by imposing sanctions. Regime retaliates by using force to dissuade the US to repeal said sanctions. US declares war. You could substitute Japan or Iraq into that scenario and have them be exactly and entirely comparable.

You are welcome to be an America First kind of commentator. Isolationists have some valid points. But if you take the "Saddam was no threat to us" point of view, you've essentially committed yourself to that position for every single war the US has fought, with the possible exception of the US Civil War. WWII and the Holocaust, Bosnia, Korea... any of the so-called "morally justified" wars. If Saddam was not a threat who deserved our action to remove, there never has and never will be a regime that deserves it.

Kimon
06-10-2015, 07:29 PM
I don't remember going through this, at all. He arrived in Iraq as early as 1999 but certainly by early 2002, and yet was allowed to remain, unmolested, until late 2002. And you cannot even make the case that they didn't know he was there, because they somehow knew exactly where to find him when they wanted to. Basically every source (not to mention common sense) tells us that he was allowed to remain in Iraq, safely out of the reach of international authorities, until Saddam thought he might collaborate with the Americans.


Here's a thread from back in April of this same year. Hardly ancient history. The discussion is literally between you and me, on Abu Nidal. You first mention him on page 6, post #106, my response is post #109. You reply in post #116, my reply is post #122 on page 7.

http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8549&highlight=abu+nidal&page=6

This is kind of stupid moral relativism that pisses me off. Why would we care about a slave state in this day and age, since we had legal slavery until 1863? Using our past mistakes as some sort of panacea excuse for allowing evil actions to continue is just intellectually feeble and unworthy of a serious debate. We didn't allow a whole bunch of Jewish refugees to land on American soil in the prelude to WWII... maybe we should tell world Jewry they're not welcome anymore again, right?

I realize you think we should act as global cop. You should likewise realize by now, since we've had this exact same debate in various threads, that I do not share that view.

Whoa whoa whoa. Says who? Just because he was no match for the most powerful military on the planet, doesn't mean he wouldn't have been capable of ensuring a whole lot of death and destruction for another backwards, fanatical regime that treats its citizens like chattel.

The first Iraq-Iran War ended in a stalemate. Considering that Iraq was substantially weakened and its panoply of armaments effectively curtailed following their defeat at our hands in the First Gulf War, it is hardly drastic to surmise that they would no longer have been a match for Iran. Iran has suffered from economic sanctions, but its military might has not been decimated. By contrast, we had crippled Iraq. A second war between Iraq and Iran would have had a quite predictable outcome.

It isn't just the Israeli's. As you've comprehensively failed to refute, Saddam was harboring an international terrorist. He was bribing and suborning members of the international community. And he was killing and oppressing his own people, who deserved our help and sympathy.

See above.

You are, of course, welcome to the opinion that we should not intervene abroad. But if you think that Saddam did not justify our intervention, then you essentially are saying no intervention is ever justified, whatever the reason. I mean, by your logic, Japan was justified in attacking and killing Americans at Pearl Harbor because the US had unilaterally imposed economic sanctions on them for their aggression in the Far East in the 1930s. How is that ANY different than Iraq in 2003? Foreign nation aggressively attacks and conquers its neighbors. Said regime commits numerous crimes against humanity, against civilian populations that are at least nominally US allies. US responds by imposing sanctions. Regime retaliates by using force to dissuade the US to repeal said sanctions. US declares war. You could substitute Japan or Iraq into that scenario and have them be exactly and entirely comparable.

You are welcome to be an America First kind of commentator. Isolationists have some valid points. But if you take the "Saddam was no threat to us" point of view, you've essentially committed yourself to that position for every single war the US has fought, with the possible exception of the US Civil War. WWII and the Holocaust, Bosnia, Korea... any of the so-called "morally justified" wars. If Saddam was not a threat who deserved our action to remove, there never has and never will be a regime that deserves it.

Saddam wasn't a threat to us. Deposing him was a waste of money and a distraction from the enemy that actually had been a threat to us - Al Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan. You notice I do not say that that war was unjustified. Therein lies the difference. Afghanistan too was mismanaged and a failure, but at least entering into that war made sense. Just like WWII made sense. Iraq War II didn't. The stupidity of that war is exacerbated by the disastrous chaos that has arisen from the chaos of its aftermath, namely the rise of ISIS, but that chaos only added to what already had been a mistake. I will concede, very grudgingly (nor am I at all convinced that we are capable of improving the situation, or of achieving anything more than a very temporary and ephemeral stability), that a legitimate argument can be made for re-escalation to deal with ISIS, there was no such pragmatic casus belli for getting rid of Saddam.

Nazbaque
06-10-2015, 07:46 PM
Now Ozy if you want to be taken seriously around here you should refrain from the following:

1.

I don't remember going through this, at all. He arrived in Iraq as early as 1999 but certainly by early 2002, and yet was allowed to remain, unmolested, until late 2002. And you cannot even make the case that they didn't know he was there, because they somehow knew exactly where to find him when they wanted to. Basically every source (not to mention common sense) tells us that he was allowed to remain in Iraq, safely out of the reach of international authorities, until Saddam thought he might collaborate with the Americans.

Using the words "common sense". Only people who are naively optimistic of the level of intelligence of an average human use this phrase and they only use it when they can't explain why they feel something to be obvious.

2.

This is kind of stupid moral relativism that pisses me off. Why would we care about a slave state in this day and age, since we had legal slavery until 1863? Using our past mistakes as some sort of panacea excuse for allowing evil actions to continue is just intellectually feeble and unworthy of a serious debate. We didn't allow a whole bunch of Jewish refugees to land on American soil in the prelude to WWII... maybe we should tell world Jewry they're not welcome anymore again, right?

If you tell us that you are angry we have no reason to believe that you have actually considered the subject of discussion in a calm and clear frame of mind.

3.

No there is not. If you're citing that New York Times article that Southpaw kept trying to use as evidence, it's not.

This was originally written by Kimon. If you can't keep your quotes straight it looks like you don't read through what you write carefully enough. And if you don't read your own writing carefully, why should we believe you read ours?

4.

Are you joking? If we shot at that plane, or the Russians shot at an American plane openly and unabashedly, it would be an international incident and if it kept happening, would certainly lead to war. The difference between that article and what was happening in Iraq is that SHOTS WERE FIRED. How can you possibly miss that crucial piece of evidence? And even if you want to be blase about it, its still not okay! We all agree that the No Fly Zones were both politically and ethically necessary to prevent genocide and murder. The entire international community agreed, so Saddam's attempts to violate it are as close to an outright illegal use of force as you are likely to get in the realm of international law.

Showing that you think someone else's serious opinion is a joke is very disrespectful. Why should anyone bother to respect your opinion when you openly disrespect theirs?

5.

You are, of course, welcome to the opinion that we should not intervene abroad. But if you think that Saddam did not justify our intervention, then you essentially are saying no intervention is ever justified, whatever the reason. I mean, by your logic, Japan was justified in attacking and killing Americans at Pearl Harbor because the US had unilaterally imposed economic sanctions on them for their aggression in the Far East in the 1930s. How is that ANY different than Iraq in 2003? Foreign nation aggressively attacks and conquers its neighbors. Said regime commits numerous crimes against humanity, against civilian populations that are at least nominally US allies. US responds by imposing sanctions. Regime retaliates by using force to dissuade the US to repeal said sanctions. US declares war. You could substitute Japan or Iraq into that scenario and have them be exactly and entirely comparable.

If you put words in someone's mouth like this you are obviously not concerned with what is right, but with who is right. Truth will remain true no matter who speaks it and trying to force lies into someone's mouth doesn't prove anything they actually did say to be false.



Aside from these bad habbits there seem to be certain constants in the way you think. First you believe in the official far too much. Official is just what people believe reality to be or what they want it to be or what they want others to believe it to be. Reality does not bow to what we believe. Second you often try to force absolutes into morality, but it is not that easy. It is very rare for morality to be simple. You seem to think that right is the opposite of wrong. It is not. Right is the absence of wrong. The opposite of wrong is a different kind of wrong just as far from right as the first one. And thirdly you have a lot of trouble recognising the fact that the very bad and evil people that come up in these discussions are also human beings with complex lives that very likely are not what you think them to be.

Oh and before you start calling me a hypocrite for putting words in your mouth, I will again say that this is what you seem to be like. If you want to prove the image I have of you wrong, start tailoring your responses.

Davian93
06-10-2015, 08:11 PM
How is that ANY different than Iraq in 2003? Foreign nation aggressively attacks and conquers its neighbors. Said regime commits numerous crimes against humanity, against civilian populations that are at least nominally US allies. US responds by imposing sanctions. Regime retaliates by using force to dissuade the US to repeal said sanctions. US declares war. You could substitute Japan or Iraq into that scenario and have them be exactly and entirely comparable.

Well, for one, our existence as a nation wasn't threatened like it was by Japan & Germany. And the amount of force used was significantly different. Last I checked, Iraq didn't attack our most important naval base with the intention of destroying half of our navy. And, as I've said before, Iraq was effectively contained and was, as the current situation is showing us, probably the least evil of the options for that region given the previous 100 years of fvck ups.

GonzoTheGreat
06-11-2015, 04:39 AM
The first Iraq-Iran War ended in a stalemate. Considering that Iraq was substantially weakened and its panoply of armaments effectively curtailed following their defeat at our hands in the First Gulf War, it is hardly drastic to surmise that they would no longer have been a match for Iran. Iran has suffered from economic sanctions, but its military might has not been decimated. By contrast, we had crippled Iraq. A second war between Iraq and Iran would have had a quite predictable outcome.
If the problem had really been the threat that Saddam posed to Iran, then there was a far cheaper and less deadly way of solving it: end the sanctions on Iran.
The fact that that wasn't done proves beyond reasonable doubt that the USA did not care at all about the threat to Iran.

Thus, the whole "Saddam threatened Iran" is just a bogus argument with no relevance to the invasion at all.

Daekyras
06-11-2015, 04:57 AM
A couple of things that I want to bring up. They may be controversial but the discussion seems to be going around in circles (except for nazbaque who is making delightful squares for me to enjoy).


1. The first gulf war was a success? What criteria are you basing that on? When the allied forces pulled out the exact same regime was in charge!! A countries infrastructure was destroyed but nothing fundamentally changed.

2. The second gulf war was a war over oil. THERE WERE NO WMDS. And no, you can't say there was a justified threat. There was not. It is an absolute travesty that certain political leaders have not faced war crime charges.e

3. The USA or Britain will NEVER "win" another war. They have one massive problem- they are being watched and judged by the whole world. When they enter a region they can take control of it for a short term but never hold it because they cannot do the things necessary to maintain it. There will always be insurgents and counter attacks.

Take Liberia for instance- there are three Magor warlords carving it up right now. They roll into a town. Kill a bunch of people. Then the survivors are given the choice- join or die. No large groups ofinsurgents left. Area conquered.

The "good guys" can't do that.

edit: I had more to this post but it disappeared. One thing is about gonzos post directly above. I hope that I am not wrong or remembering this wrong- the entire motivation for Britain's involvement was searching for WMDS. To the best of my knowledge a "threat" against Iran was never mentioned.

GonzoTheGreat
06-11-2015, 05:10 AM
Yes, Britain did indeed join the war officially only because of the WMD. Why they aren't still looking for them is not clear to me; they definitely haven't found them, yet.

Davian93
06-11-2015, 07:44 AM
1. The first gulf war was a success? What criteria are you basing that on? When the allied forces pulled out the exact same regime was in charge!! A countries infrastructure was destroyed but nothing fundamentally changed.

Easy, the goal of that war wasn't regime change for very good reasons. They simply wanted to liberate Kuwait...which they did within 4 days once the ground war started.

They avoided regime change even though they had half a million troops within a couple of days of Baghdad with nothing between them and the city. We very smartly realized that if we got rid of Saddam, we'd have to figure out a new gov't and it would shatter our coalition.

Nazbaque
06-11-2015, 10:14 AM
A couple of things that I want to bring up. They may be controversial but the discussion seems to be going around in circles (except for nazbaque who is making delightful squares for me to enjoy).

Which are your favourites? Let's hi-jack the thread and discuss them in detail until they become circles too.

Ozymandias
06-11-2015, 11:02 AM
Here's a thread from back in April of this same year. Hardly ancient history. The discussion is literally between you and me, on Abu Nidal. You first mention him on page 6, post #106, my response is post #109. You reply in post #116, my reply is post #122 on page 7.

http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8549&highlight=abu+nidal&page=6

I honestly don't recall seeing that, but having read it, it smacks of the kind of willful, head-in-the-sand ignorance of opinion that I had assumed was your position.

You explicitly agree with me that for however long he was there, Iraqi officials were aware that Abu Nidal was in the country for at least several months and possibly quite a bit longer. Even assuming the short end, that they knew he was there for half a year or more, that is half a year in which they knowingly sheltered a known, wanted international terrorist. This isn't a matter of days or a week whereby you might claim they were debating options.

The second it became clear that he might flip on them (being, essentially, a mercenary) for a better deal for the US, or that he might be captured in the then-inevitable US invasion and (I suspect, but obviously have no evidence) inform on Saddam and senior members of the regime, he was executed. Even if, as the official story goes, he put a bullet in his mouth (seems unlikely), the timing and circumstance all point to the fact that he was either going to be killed by the Iraqi's (which is almost certainly what happened anyway) or detained and tortured.

I realize you think we should act as global cop. You should likewise realize by now, since we've had this exact same debate in various threads, that I do not share that view.

I am not sure I have ever advocated such a proactive view of our international role. I merely have said that Saddam was evil, and that his removal was legally, politically, and above all ethically justified. Many anti-war folks have tried to make the prima facie ridiculous claim that if we use a moral justification for one invasion, it somehow commits us to do the same in every other instance in which that moral imperative is present, a claim which I categorically deny as my position or as the position of any sensible person.

Moreover, as I'm coming to realize, you care nothing for the moral or legal basis for the intervention in Iraq. And again, that is your prerogative, and isolationism has its arguments. I'm merely asking you to be honest about this position and stop trying to claim that there was something illegal or unethical about our decision to invade. You may disagree on philosophic grounds with helping a tortured and oppressed people at the expense of American dollars and lives, and that is fine. That does not mean that we weren't justified in intervening, merely that you think any intervention in any possible case is wrong.

The first Iraq-Iran War ended in a stalemate. Considering that Iraq was substantially weakened and its panoply of armaments effectively curtailed following their defeat at our hands in the First Gulf War, it is hardly drastic to surmise that they would no longer have been a match for Iran. Iran has suffered from economic sanctions, but its military might has not been decimated. By contrast, we had crippled Iraq. A second war between Iraq and Iran would have had a quite predictable outcome.

We have the testimony of senior regime officials that Saddam was planning on restarting the war with Iran. Whether or not he could have won such a war is immaterial (not outrageous to think he was mentally ill), because he would have invaded and it would have caused huge loss of life and, from a geopolitical perspective, disrupted oil shipments in the region.

Given the history of the Iran Iraq War, its pretty safe to say that neither side would have been capable of winning easily.


Saddam wasn't a threat to us. Deposing him was a waste of money and a distraction from the enemy that actually had been a threat to us - Al Qaeda and the war in Afghanistan. You notice I do not say that that war was unjustified. Therein lies the difference. Afghanistan too was mismanaged and a failure, but at least entering into that war made sense.

We entered that war because we suspected the Taliban government was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Which they may not have been.

In any case, you haven't really explained why one "made sense" and the other didn't. I'd like to hear you expand on those reasons.

Just like WWII made sense.

Again, expand. Hitler posed no direct threat to the United States. He had never attacked Americans or made a credible threat to do so. He was at war with some of our allies, for sure... but then, if it wasn't for American-led sanctions, Saddam would have been an equally great threat to Israel. All your bad analogies relating to Israel suckering us into taking out Saddam for them could be applied to the UK.

Iraq War II didn't. The stupidity of that war is exacerbated by the disastrous chaos that has arisen from the chaos of its aftermath, namely the rise of ISIS

ISIS came to power in Syria, arguably because we refused to intervene to prevent extremists from seizing government military arsenals. They have migrated into Iraq, for sure, but it is not an Iraqi phenomenon. You will recall that during the surge, our increased military presence tamped down on insurgents of all stripes. So while the initial planning was poor, doubting our ability to be effective is kind of silly, as we've already proven we can stabilize the country.

That being said, I agree that we don't belong there in force indefinitely. We liberated tens of millions of people from an oppressive regime and gave them a chance to form a multi-ethnic democratic state. At some point, it becomes their responsibility to make the most of that. Yes, reconstruction should have been planned better, but by 2007-08 Iraq was holding reasonably fair elections and a great deal of the violence had subsided. It is possible that Iraq was a failed state to begin with and that the regional ethnic and religious differences are too great to be overcome. In which case, now we know.

But letting so many people live like chattel, for so long, was an impossible situation to bear.

Nazbaque
06-11-2015, 11:36 AM
Again, expand. Hitler posed no direct threat to the United States. He had never attacked Americans or made a credible threat to do so. He was at war with some of our allies, for sure... but then, if it wasn't for American-led sanctions, Saddam would have been an equally great threat to Israel. All your bad analogies relating to Israel suckering us into taking out Saddam for them could be applied to the UK.

Does the term "U-boat" mean anything to you Ozy?

GonzoTheGreat
06-11-2015, 11:52 AM
Given the history of the Iran Iraq War, its pretty safe to say that neither side would have been capable of winning easily.
Assuming, at least, that the USA once again supported Saddam and hindered Iran, just as happened the previous time. If, on the other hand, the USA now allowed Iran to do business while putting even more stringent sanctions on Saddam, then there does not seem to be much reason to think it would have lasted all that long.

So why do you assume that the USA would support Saddam?
Bonus question: why shouldn't this be cause for bombing of the USA?

Again, expand. Hitler posed no direct threat to the United States. He had never attacked Americans or made a credible threat to do so. He was at war with some of our allies, for sure... but then, if it wasn't for American-led sanctions, Saddam would have been an equally great threat to Israel. All your bad analogies relating to Israel suckering us into taking out Saddam for them could be applied to the UK.Well, there is the detail that Hitler had actually really declared war upon the USA.
Did Saddam do that too, and if not, then why not wait until he did?


ISIS came to power in Syria, arguably because we refused to intervene to prevent extremists from seizing government military arsenals. They have migrated into Iraq, for sure, but it is not an Iraqi phenomenon.Now that's some pretty disingenuous arguing. The core of IS is a bunch of former Iraqi army officers, who, with their men and their weapons, joined a group of fundamentalists and took over. They still have a figurehead as Caliph, but the military decisions are made by professional Iraqi officers.

You will recall that during the surge, our increased military presence tamped down on insurgents of all stripes. So while the initial planning was poor, doubting our ability to be effective is kind of silly, as we've already proven we can stabilize the country.If you ignore the massacres and such which your allies carried out. Not all Iraqi were willing to ignore those, for some reason.

We liberated tens of millions of people from an oppressive regime and gave them a chance to form a multi-ethnic democratic state.True and false.
And the fact that it "giving them a chance at democracy" is false is a pretty damning indictment of how this was handled.

For example: if you wanted to give them democracy, then why did you ban the Communist Party from taking part in the elections?
Sure, Saddam had called them terrorists. But if you believed everything he said, then you hadn't needed to invade in the first place.

But letting so many people live like chattel, for so long, was an impossible situation to bear.
Then why didn't you invade North Korea?

Apart from the horrible lack of oil in the ground there, of course. That is clearly part of the reason why those people deserve to live as chattel, but is it sufficient reason for you?

Davian93
06-11-2015, 11:53 AM
Um also, Hitler stupidly declared war on the US and we had to respond at that point. Had he not declared war, we very well might not have opened up hostilities with him immediately.


One of his dumber decisions really.

Timeline of events:

12/07/1941: Japan Attacks Pearl Harbor and Declares War on United States
12/08/1941: United States Declares War on Empire of Japan
12/11/1941: Germany & Italy Declare War on United States
12/11/1941 (later the same day): United States Declares War on Germany & Italy

Germany could have said "well, good luck with that as they weren't obligated to support Japan if Japan started a conflict.

Kimon
06-11-2015, 12:48 PM
I honestly don't recall seeing that, but having read it, it smacks of the kind of willful, head-in-the-sand ignorance of opinion that I had assumed was your position.


Seeing? You wrote two of those posts yourself, and it was just two months ago. Regardless, Abu Nidal is not a justification for the war so neither the fact that he was there prior to the war, nor that he was executed by Saddam are justifications of the war. They might have been justification of an extradition request, as clearly not just the Iraqis were aware of his presence, as so too were we and the Kuwaitis, but then it seems that at least the Kuwaitis, and perhaps at least by extension us, were using him as a spy. There is no evidence that he ever was working during those years for Saddam, nor evidence that his presence was immediately known and allowed by Saddam. It is clear that he eventually was aware of his presence, and it is clear that he had him executed prior to the invasion. We (the public, the CIA or NSA likely have a clearer picture, especially as they may have been using him themselves) are not even certain how long he was in Iraq. It may have been months, it may have been nearly two years, either way, the evidence doesn't point to him working for Saddam during that time.

We have the testimony of senior regime officials that Saddam was planning on restarting the war with Iran. Whether or not he could have won such a war is immaterial (not outrageous to think he was mentally ill), because he would have invaded and it would have caused huge loss of life and, from a geopolitical perspective, disrupted oil shipments in the region.

Given the history of the Iran Iraq War, its pretty safe to say that neither side would have been capable of winning easily.

This is what I was pointing to with the cop reference. You seem to think that we have some intrinsic justification, perhaps even intrinsic obligation to police and to judicate these types of hostilities between neighbors. At times doing so is prudent, but here is the key, if he had attacked a neighbor, then there would have been a casus belli, just as there had been when he invaded Kuwait prior to the First Gulf War. He did not however attack any of his neighbors in the lead up to the second, it is thus not a reasonable justification for a declaration of war. Nor for that matter was his shooting at American planes flying over disputed airspace. If he had shot at civilian planes anywhere, or even military planes flying over non-Iraqi airspace then you would have a justification. None ever were. Indeed the only US planes ever shot down in the no-fly zone was an accidental friendly fire incident when two Blackhawk helicopters were shoot down by us, accidentally. But Saddam never recognized the legitimacy of the no-fly zone, and had been shooting, unsuccessfully, at US and British planes since the conclusion of the First Gulf War. It was not some new phenomenon.

We entered that war because we suspected the Taliban government was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Which they may not have been.

In any case, you haven't really explained why one "made sense" and the other didn't. I'd like to hear you expand on those reasons.

Al Qaeda attacked us. There is a world of difference between what happened to the World Trade Center (and the Pentagon) and the loss of civilian life therein, and what was essentially a harmlessly symbolic shooting at planes over disputed airspace. Had Saddam been behind 9/11 then it would have justified the war. He wasn't.

Again, expand. Hitler posed no direct threat to the United States. He had never attacked Americans or made a credible threat to do so. He was at war with some of our allies, for sure... but then, if it wasn't for American-led sanctions, Saddam would have been an equally great threat to Israel. All your bad analogies relating to Israel suckering us into taking out Saddam for them could be applied to the UK.

The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor - a just casus belli. The Germans had conquered Poland, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and was trying to annex Britain. That too provided a very just casus belli. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, that was a casus belli. What had he done prior to the second war? He hadn't attacked any neighbor. He was letting inspectors search for the WMD that he didn't have. Is it really just Abu Nidal and symbolic shoots at planes for the past decade? No one would have supported that, unless they already were pre-disposed to finding an excuse for the war. Many of us think the real reason was a combination of greed and a misguided attempt to sow democracy, and while sowing democracy can be sold to the public, helping the profit margin for Halliburton and other war-profiteering companies is hardly a noble cause, so instead they cooked the books and sold the public this nonsense about the weapons.

Davian93
06-11-2015, 07:13 PM
The Germans had conquered Poland, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and was trying to annex Britain. That too provided a very just casus belli.

We didn't need a casus belli, they declared war on us. Anything they did was irrelevant up to that point. To be honest, none of that was a casus belli anyway given that we weren't allies with any of those nations. It was a good reason for us to want to stop them but it wasn't a direct threat to us. Honestly, without the German declaration, there is some question as to whether our country would have declared a state of war with Germany or Italy immediately. It very likely would have happened but given our very strong Isolationist bent as a nation at that time, we very well might have focused on Japan just like the USSR ignored Japan in favor of focusing in Germany.

This would have screwed the Brits over and us long term as it likely leads to Germany getting the Mid-East Oil fields but it would have been very tough for FDR to convince our Congress immediately.

Kimon
06-11-2015, 07:38 PM
We didn't need a casus belli, they declared war on us. Anything they did was irrelevant up to that point. To be honest, none of that was a casus belli anyway given that we weren't allies with any of those nations. It was a good reason for us to want to stop them but it wasn't a direct threat to us. Honestly, without the German declaration, there is some question as to whether our country would have declared a state of war with Germany or Italy immediately. It very likely would have happened but given our very strong Isolationist bent as a nation at that time, we very well might have focused on Japan just like the USSR ignored Japan in favor of focusing in Germany.

This would have screwed the Brits over and us long term as it likely leads to Germany getting the Mid-East Oil fields but it would have been very tough for FDR to convince our Congress immediately.

War w/Germany essentially became inevitable once FDR signed Lend-Lease in March of '41. It was just a matter of when and how. By contrast, I'm not sure that war with Japan occurs without Pearl Harbor and the Philippines both being attacked in December. Our embargo likely made that theatre inevitable too, but more so from their point of view than ours.

Kimon
08-23-2015, 08:38 PM
I might be the only one that cares about Palmyra, but a trickle of horrific events continues to leak of actions taken by ISIS there.

A week ago it was revealed that they had beheaded the site's curator, Khaled al-Asaad, an 81 year old man who had been the archaeologist in charge of the site for 40 years. Today it was revealed that they have also begun destroying the temples.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34036644

IS "placed a large quantity of explosives in the temple of Baalshamin today and then blew it up causing much damage to the temple," Syrian antiquities chief Maamoun Abdulkarim told AFP news agency.
"The cella (inner area of the temple) was destroyed and the columns around collapsed," he said

Baalshamin is just another name for Baal Adad, or Hadad, a Sky and Storm God. He is moreover essentially the equivalent of Zeus, Jupiter, and Yahweh, as Yahweh is just the Sky God Baal of the Israelites.

Davian93
08-23-2015, 09:03 PM
Sad. Not unexpected but just sad all around. Palmyra was a historical site of unmatched value and now it will be gone.

Why do fanatics always need to destroy history whether its the Iconoclasm movements in early Christianity (and Puritanism for that matter), Cromwell's rampant destructions during the English Civil War in the name the Puritanism, the Khmer Rouge or now ISIS?

Just sad.

GonzoTheGreat
08-24-2015, 04:32 AM
Why do fanatics always need to destroy history whether its the Iconoclasm movements in early Christianity (and Puritanism for that matter), Cromwell's rampant destructions during the English Civil War in the name the Puritanism, the Khmer Rouge or now ISIS?
That's just what being fanatics in this sense means. They think that their view, their approach to life, is good and everything else is evil or the product of evil.
If they had more diverse views on things then they would not be fanatics.

The Unreasoner
08-24-2015, 03:53 PM
Kimon, I'm just curious: do you still support Assad? It seems he's dropped the 'ordnung uber alles' ball.

IOW: why hasn't Assad saved Palmyra?

Kimon
08-24-2015, 05:58 PM
Kimon, I'm just curious: do you still support Assad? It seems he's dropped the 'ordnung uber alles' ball.


Too much baggage. It also doesn't help that he is a Shia Warlord in an overwhelmingly Sunni state. He's still unfortunately the most secular of the options, but it's clear that neither can he recover what he has lost without a great deal of help, and that the Sunni, both inside Syria, and outside (most notably Turkey) will not suffer the idea of his staying in power. There aren't any obvious viable alternatives however. The Kurds are Sunni, and would be the most palatable for us, but Turkey clearly would rather have ISIS take over Syria than let the Kurds do so. Unfortunately, the non-Kurd Sunni in Syria likely would also find the Kurds at least, in not more, unpalatable than ISIS. The only other rebels besides the Kurds who have had any success in the field are unfortunately ISIS and al-Nusra, both of which would be nightmare scenarios for us, and for the region.

What scares me, is that I'm not convinced that Turkey would truly mind that outcome. I suppose we can hope that the Turks will finally get as nervous about ISIS as they are about the Kurds and conquer all of Syria themselves. Of all the horrifically awful possibilities, that perhaps is the least bad. I'm honestly expecting that we'll eventually send real ground troops (not just "advisors"). I think it will have to wait until after the next presidential election, but might be inevitable regardless of which party wins.

IOW: why hasn't Assad saved Palmyra?

What makes you think he could?

Rand al'Fain
08-24-2015, 08:01 PM
Kimon, I'm just curious: do you still support Assad? It seems he's dropped the 'ordnung uber alles' ball.

IOW: why hasn't Assad saved Palmyra?

The guy is doing all he can to stay in power and protect his bases of power. I don't think he has the spare troops and resources to divert to Palmyra and other historic sites.

Ozymandias
08-24-2015, 08:07 PM
I might be the only one that cares about Palmyra, but a trickle of horrific events continues to leak of actions taken by ISIS there.

A week ago it was revealed that they had beheaded the site's curator, Khaled al-Asaad, an 81 year old man who had been the archaeologist in charge of the site for 40 years. Today it was revealed that they have also begun destroying the temples.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34036644


Before I get to the post above (which I will respond to, promise), I do want to say that Mr. al-Asaad is my new hero. They had him under "interrogation" for weeks and he still didn't reveal to where he and his team had sent the various artifacts that they had evacuated them.

Palmyra is one of those places doubly valuable both for the cultural melange produced there because of its position at the edge of the Persian, Greco-Roman, and Arabian worlds, but also because as a place which was not particularly important for most of history (except the few short centuries in which it was critical), it gives a much more accurate "slice of life" feel to archaeologists than other cultural centers, like Akhetaten.

The Unreasoner
08-24-2015, 09:47 PM
What makes you think he could?
I didn't. But I also never thought there was a place for him in a Syria at peace. ISIS's rise is the direct result of leaving Assad in power.

Davian93
08-24-2015, 09:50 PM
I didn't. But I also never thought there was a place for him in a Syria at peace. ISIS's rise is the direct result of leaving Assad in power.

Well...the little "create a massive power vacuum in next-door Iraq" didn't exactly help matters. Nor did the "hey, we should totally fund Assad's enemies" push nor Turkey's deliberate ignoring of the issue for the first year because it was hurting Assad AND the Kurds too.

There are lots of reasons ISIS grew in power...leaving Assad is on the list maybe but way, way down on it.

Kimon
08-30-2015, 08:30 PM
ISIS destroyed the Temple of Bel today. I have to imagine that the Theatre is next, though perhaps they will decide that it is less overtly pagan, and so spare it. Although considering what they have used the Theatre for (the televised executions of 25 captives in early July), that is hardly much better.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34103994

GonzoTheGreat
08-31-2015, 04:21 AM
That is just religion. Don't you have religion in your country too? That's the same, isn't it?

ShadowbaneX
08-31-2015, 12:44 PM
That's religion yes, but in western religion this sort of thing hasn't happened in several centuries. It's a little shocking to our sensitive modern minds to see such savagery.

GonzoTheGreat
08-31-2015, 01:33 PM
Technically, one could say that Western religion is Christianity and it wouldn't be all that easy to find substantial differences between what ISIS does and what the LRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army) does, apart from the glaring lack of ancient ruines in the Uganda jungles.

The savagery is definitely there; it is just tamed in many places by secular forces. That's not proof that "our religion" is any better, only that it is less influential. Which many people will tell you they regret.

Davian93
08-31-2015, 01:39 PM
That's religion yes, but in western religion this sort of thing hasn't happened in several centuries. It's a little shocking to our sensitive modern minds to see such savagery.

Fanaticism, whether cloaked in religion or not, isn't exactly rare. Hell, look at Germany just 70 years ago...and most would consider Germany to be a pretty advanced, civilized 1st world country today.

It doesnt take much to tip the apple cart over and watch the world burn.

Kimon
08-31-2015, 06:11 PM
Apparently Bel isn't going down without a fight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34107395

Palmyra's ancient Temple of Bel is still standing despite an attempt by Islamic State (IS) militants to blow it up, Syria's antiquities chief has said.
Maamoun Abdulkarim confirmed there was a large explosion within its perimeter but said the basic structure of the 2,000-year-old site was intact.

Edit:
BBC just updated that story due to new satellite imagery - Bel is gone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34111092

ShadowbaneX
08-31-2015, 08:12 PM
Yeah, but I was talking about Religious Fanatacism. There have been some bouts in the past few centuries, but the big stuff was a while back.

Davian93
09-01-2015, 09:06 AM
Apparently Bel isn't going down without a fight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34107395



Edit:
BBC just updated that story due to new satellite imagery - Bel is gone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34111092

If, at first, you don't succeed...

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2015, 10:21 AM
If, at first, you don't succeed...
ISIS is clearly following the GWB script. Do they openly credit him, or wouldn't he appreciate that?

Davian93
09-01-2015, 10:34 AM
ISIS is clearly following the GWB script. Do they openly credit him, or wouldn't he appreciate that?

I'm not sure that 'do lots of coke and have daddy bail you out' applies to what ISIS is doing...or whether or not he scripted those actions.

GonzoTheGreat
09-01-2015, 10:57 AM
Look on the bright side: a decade or so from now a bunch of religious fanatics is gonna emulate president Trump.

Daekyras
09-01-2015, 07:01 PM
Apparently Bel isn't going down without a fight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34107395



Edit:
BBC just updated that story due to new satellite imagery - Bel is gone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34111092

Anyone know why they were attacking this site? And other historical sites?

Kimon
09-01-2015, 07:37 PM
Anyone know why they were attacking this site? And other historical sites?

They are taking an extreme purifying stance regarding non-Muslim religious artifacts. This sort of nonsense is atypical even for Muslims - consider after all that these sites were sitting mostly unharmed (some general predation, especially of artifact hunters, or stone quarriers must always be expected), though under Muslim rule, for over a thousand years.

The first I can recall hearing of this sort of recent endangerment to archaeological sites in the Muslim World was with the Taliban and the Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 2001. They too had been a major heritage site, well-known by the West, and a tourism draw. Mullah Omar made statements, as has ISIS, while taking these sort of actions, justifying them as the destruction of false idols, but another rationale also likely is at play. These sites were revered by the West, destroying them thus both serves not only to reinforce an extreme and purist worldview of Islam, but also to really piss off some of us in the West. They know this sort of destruction is going to touch a nerve, not just with the fundamentalists that they are trying to recruit to their cause, but also touches a nerve with the enemy. It is thus a dual-purpose propaganda message.

They don't however always destroy, it's also well-documented that they are very active in the illegal trade of artifacts as part of their financing. That's also bad, though by comparison...

Daekyras
09-01-2015, 08:34 PM
They are taking an extreme purifying stance regarding non-Muslim religious artifacts. This sort of nonsense is atypical even for Muslims - consider after all that these sites were sitting mostly unharmed (some general predation, especially of artifact hunters, or stone quarriers must always be expected), though under Muslim rule, for over a thousand years.

The first I can recall hearing of this sort of recent endangerment to archaeological sites in the Muslim World was with the Taliban and the Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 2001. They too had been a major heritage site, well-known by the West, and a tourism draw. Mullah Omar made statements, as has ISIS, while taking these sort of actions, justifying them as the destruction of false idols, but another rationale also likely is at play. These sites were revered by the West, destroying them thus both serves not only to reinforce an extreme and purist worldview of Islam, but also to really piss off some of us in the West. They know this sort of destruction is going to touch a nerve, not just with the fundamentalists that they are trying to recruit to their cause, but also touches a nerve with the enemy. It is thus a dual-purpose propaganda message.

They don't however always destroy, it's also well-documented that they are very active in the illegal trade of artifacts as part of their financing. That's also bad, though by comparison...

I wonder if there is precedent in western countries of doing the same? I'm sure that at some stage a christian country must have done the same. Maybe after the Romans converted? Did they start destroying ancient relics?

It's fascinating.

Kimon
09-01-2015, 09:37 PM
I wonder if there is precedent in western countries of doing the same? I'm sure that at some stage a christian country must have done the same. Maybe after the Romans converted? Did they start destroying ancient relics?

It's fascinating.

Early Christianity saw a lot of these sorts of acts, both against pagan temples and against synagogues. Theodosius' reign (late 4th Century AD) is the most egregious example from the early days of the Church's infestation of the empire, but that abusive hostility to all other religions continued for centuries. Take for instance Charlemagne's campaigns against the Saxons, where he clearly offered only a choice between conversion and death. At Verden alone he massacred 4500 Saxon captives because they refused to abandon their gods. His actions were praised by the Papacy, and his role in spreading Christianity, albeit by the sword, was what led to his coronation by Leo III as Imperator Romanorum. Part of the reason for that title was obviously to annoy the Byzantines, but part of it was clearly for his "good deeds", his killing in the name of Christ.

Sometimes the temples aren't destroyed obviously, some were converted. That's better than destroying them, but it is nonetheless quite irritating to walk into a a beautiful temple like the Pantheon, and be forced to imagine its former glory, all the old gods removed, their images destroyed, but symbols of the interloper worshipped in their former house. The Pantheon is far from the only temple that had its original occupant displaced. The Parthenon is in the delapidated present state mostly owing to fighting between Venice and the Ottomans, when it was hit by an artillery shell while being used as gunpowder depot by the Turks. It also served for a time as a mosque, and before that as a Church. It was Theodosius that first ordered that her house be violated however, and it was the Byzantines that stole her statue. Her image was destroyed in Byzantium, most assume during the sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade.

That same sort of sentiment obviously didn't end with the close of the Middle Ages. Once all paganism was effectively eradicated in Europe, Protestantism arose allowing different sects of the Church to turn their hatred against each other rather than against other religions. And obviously also still against Islam and Judaism. Especially Judaism, as there were more Jews than Muslims living alongside Christians.

If you're looking for a more modern parallel, think for instance of Kristallnacht, and of the worse horrors that followed that night of the broken glass. Muslims aren't alone in these crimes. They just happen to be the most likely perpetrators of such abominations at present.

Nazbaque
09-02-2015, 04:55 AM
The religion isn't really the point here. This is purism. Nazis and KKK are cases of racial pureism. ISIS is religious and history has seen plenty of that too. The Spanish Inquisition might be the most infamous example. But whatever they see as the "pure", the methods for removing the "flaws" are always extremely violent and destructive.

GonzoTheGreat
09-02-2015, 05:09 AM
Charlemagne not only killed Saxons who refused to convert, he also cut down lots of trees because those were the centres of pagan worship and they couldn't be converted into Christian churches as had been done with the classical temples.

The Spanish priests decided to destroy all the idolatry they found in the "New" World, which is why only 4 Maya codices are left instead of the thousands or more which there used to be before Christians applied their religion to it.

GonzoTheGreat
09-02-2015, 05:14 AM
The religion isn't really the point here. This is purism. Nazis and KKK are cases of racial pureism. ISIS is religious and history has seen plenty of that too. The Spanish Inquisition might be the most infamous example. But whatever they see as the "pure", the methods for removing the "flaws" are always extremely violent and destructive.
True, that. And, as is also always the case with such purists, they are hypocrites.
They ride around in Hondas designed by Japanese Zen-Buddhists, not on a horse as Muhammed would have done.
They use Kalashnikovs (designed by Soviet atheists) or Uzis (designed by a Zionist Jew), not the bow and arrow or sword that Muhammed would have used.
They depend on the Western Internet to spread their message, rather than trusting to word of mouth communication as Muhammed did.

Almost invariably, if a purist is not a hypocrite in this kind of sense, then he or she is not a danger to others at all. The Amish are an example of such.

Ozymandias
09-03-2015, 04:33 PM
Early Christianity saw a lot of these sorts of acts, both against pagan temples and against synagogues. Theodosius' reign (late 4th Century AD) is the most egregious example from the early days of the Church's infestation of the empire, but that abusive hostility to all other religions continued for centuries. Take for instance Charlemagne's campaigns against the Saxons, where he clearly offered only a choice between conversion and death. At Verden alone he massacred 4500 Saxon captives because they refused to abandon their gods. His actions were praised by the Papacy, and his role in spreading Christianity, albeit by the sword, was what led to his coronation by Leo III as Imperator Romanorum. Part of the reason for that title was obviously to annoy the Byzantines, but part of it was clearly for his "good deeds", his killing in the name of Christ.

Sometimes the temples aren't destroyed obviously, some were converted. That's better than destroying them, but it is nonetheless quite irritating to walk into a a beautiful temple like the Pantheon, and be forced to imagine its former glory, all the old gods removed, their images destroyed, but symbols of the interloper worshipped in their former house. The Pantheon is far from the only temple that had its original occupant displaced. The Parthenon is in the delapidated present state mostly owing to fighting between Venice and the Ottomans, when it was hit by an artillery shell while being used as gunpowder depot by the Turks. It also served for a time as a mosque, and before that as a Church. It was Theodosius that first ordered that her house be violated however, and it was the Byzantines that stole her statue. Her image was destroyed in Byzantium, most assume during the sack of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade.

That same sort of sentiment obviously didn't end with the close of the Middle Ages. Once all paganism was effectively eradicated in Europe, Protestantism arose allowing different sects of the Church to turn their hatred against each other rather than against other religions. And obviously also still against Islam and Judaism. Especially Judaism, as there were more Jews than Muslims living alongside Christians.


Also worth noting that basically every single major religious building in Rome was built by tearing down various Classical structures and reusing the materials. It may not be as wantonly destructive as what ISIS is doing, but proselytizing monotheism rarely respects ancient cultures.

And while many of these temples and things survived the 1500 years of Muslim rule, its worth noting that many of them probably were considered Christian at the time of Muslim expansion and thus somewhat protected from the worst depredations.

There is an actually an amusing story I was once told, that as the Muslims were overrunning Persia in the first blush of their expansion and conquest outside the Arabian Peninsula, they came across an elaborate tomb for one of the earliest (non-Sassanid) Persian kings. Might have been Naqsh e-Rustam (Darius I). The funerary priests, who knew that the invaders were destroying any pagan tombs and artifacts, told the Muslims that it was the tomb of Solomon and they let it alone. Not sure if its true, but I do like a good story about trickery, especially when it deals with taking advantage of stupid religious zealots, so I thought I'd repeat it.

Kimon
09-03-2015, 05:10 PM
Also worth noting that basically every single major religious building in Rome was built by tearing down various Classical structures and reusing the materials. It may not be as wantonly destructive as what ISIS is doing, but proselytizing monotheism rarely respects ancient cultures.


Yeah, but it's not just religious buildings - though those are obvious targets, due to the value of the building materials (especially if they are marble). Use of old stone structures for quarrying, especially when the buildings have fallen out of use (Rome was largely abandoned in the Middle Ages), is very common, and often is done by civilians. Unused, pre-cut stone is very tempting for anyone looking to build a house, or a wall, or various other projects. It's the same reason why so little is left of Hadrian's Wall. If no one is using a building, it tends to quickly be predated. Which, of course, is why the UNESCO World Heritage Committee exists, for the preservation of such culturally important sites.

Sometimes of course antiquities are predated out of admiration, and end up in museums. There is obviously still quite a bit of controversy surrounding for instance the Elgin Marbles.

And while many of these temples and things survived the 1500 years of Muslim rule, its worth noting that many of them probably were considered Christian at the time of Muslim expansion and thus somewhat protected from the worst depredations.

Coincidentally, that Temple of Bel did indeed serve briefly as both a church during Byzantine times, and then was converted into a mosque after the reconquest of Syria. It obviously hadn't been used as a mosque for quite some time, nonetheless, that's part of the reason why the temple had been so intact.

Southpaw2012
09-03-2015, 06:55 PM
The religion isn't really the point here. This is purism. Nazis and KKK are cases of racial pureism. ISIS is religious and history has seen plenty of that too. The Spanish Inquisition might be the most infamous example. But whatever they see as the "pure", the methods for removing the "flaws" are always extremely violent and destructive.

Except, it is about religion. ISIS is waging a religious war against the West- a historically Christian part of the world. We can deny it's about religion all we want, but until we admit it, we will never ever ever win. ISIS isn't just making their crap up. They have taken legitimate passages out of the Koran and are using it, and in some ways twisting it, to legitimize their campaign of terror. They will continue to win until we admit what they truly are. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Not until 2016 at least.

Nazbaque
09-03-2015, 06:57 PM
Except, it is about religion. ISIS is waging a religious war against the West- a historically Christian part of the world. We can deny it's about religion all we want, but until we admit it, we will never ever ever win. ISIS isn't just making their crap up. They have taken legitimate passages out of the Koran and are using it, and in some ways twisting it, to legitimize their campaign of terror. They will continue to win until we admit what they truly are. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Not until 2016 at least.

Did you actually read what you quoted?

ShadowbaneX
09-03-2015, 07:08 PM
Did you actually read what you quoted?

I'm more worried that he believes it.

Nazbaque
09-03-2015, 07:28 PM
I'm more worried that he believes it.

That would imply actual thinking and I'm fairly sure that he just reacts to key words with no thought or emotion. But that reply was so off that he either didn't understand the meaning of what I wrote or he just read the first sentence and activated instant rant.

Davian93
09-03-2015, 08:21 PM
Except, it is about religion. ISIS is waging a religious war against the West- a historically Christian part of the world. We can deny it's about religion all we want, but until we admit it, we will never ever ever win. ISIS isn't just making their crap up. They have taken legitimate passages out of the Koran and are using it, and in some ways twisting it, to legitimize their campaign of terror. They will continue to win until we admit what they truly are. Unfortunately, that will never happen. Not until 2016 at least.

Its a sick perversion of a religion...just like the numerous instances already mentioned where Christianity was used in exactly the same fashion. There is NOTHING that ISIS has done that hasn't been done in the past by "Christian" fanatics.

ShadowbaneX
09-03-2015, 08:25 PM
That would imply actual thinking and I'm fairly sure that he just reacts to key words with no thought or emotion. But that reply was so off that he either didn't understand the meaning of what I wrote or he just read the first sentence and activated instant rant.

Religion has long since proved that belief and thought are can easily be separated when one meets a certain threshold of zealotry & extremism.

The Unreasoner
09-03-2015, 09:06 PM
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/000/037/324/original/shutterstock_81513439.jpg?1362163939

Davian93
09-03-2015, 09:47 PM
Sad what was once the greatest church in all of Christendom is now a secular museum.

Wait, that's not really sad at all. I would have LOVED to see the Hagia Sophia in all its glory. The mosaic works there were supposed to be the best in the known world...even the small scraps remaining (that were thankfully only plastered over) are pretty awesome.

But this is the way of things...just like the Mosque/Cathedral of Cordoba or the Temple Mount. People tend to take over supposed "holy sites" when they conquer a region. Pretty standard practice that goes back eons.

The Unreasoner
09-03-2015, 09:57 PM
Sad what was once the greatest church in all of Christendom is now a secular museum.

Wait, that's not really sad at all. I would have LOVED to see the Hagia Sophia in all its glory. The mosaic works there were supposed to be the best in the known world...even the small scraps remaining (that were thankfully only plastered over) are pretty awesome.

But this is the way of things...just like the Mosque/Cathedral of Cordoba or the Temple Mount. People tend to take over supposed "holy sites" when they conquer a region. Pretty standard practice that goes back eons.
I think the fact that it's a museum is a win. It's a gorgeous building. I wasn't being sarcastic when I called it a success. The Hagia Sophia still stands because it could be (and was) appropriated.

Davian93
09-03-2015, 10:06 PM
I think the fact that it's a museum is a win. It's a gorgeous building. I wasn't being sarcastic when I called it a success. The Hagia Sophia still stands because it could be (and was) appropriated.

I agree. Its nice that its neither a mosque or church at this point.

A shame something similar cannot be achieved for say the Temple Mount...or at least a peaceful co-existence between the 3 faiths that seemingly put so much into it being a holy place...albeit Christianity doesn't have the Mount itself as high up on the list as either Islam or Judaism obviously. They're more about their "Holy" Sepulcher thingie.

Southpaw2012
09-10-2015, 01:34 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-cia-director-under-obama-132000261.html

Reason number 9848338 that the Obama administration is as far from being the most transparent administration as it claims.

The Unreasoner
09-10-2015, 02:34 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-cia-director-under-obama-132000261.html

Reason number 9848338 that the Obama administration is as far from being the most transparent administration as it claims.
This may shock you, but Obama is still a politician.

What I find more insulting is the article trying to equate looking at ISIS through rose colored glasses to the lead-up to the Iraq War. One is legacy whitewashing, the other cost billions and killed thousands of innocent people. And created ISIS.

Kimon
09-10-2015, 07:25 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/former-cia-director-under-obama-132000261.html

Reason number 9848338 that the Obama administration is as far from being the most transparent administration as it claims.

I'm not saying that there's nothing here, but let's go back and look at the original article that is sourced by your yahoo feed:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html

The complaints allege that in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions, sources familiar with the protest said. But the complaint also goes beyond alleged altering of reports and accuses some senior leaders at CENTCOM of creating an unprofessional work environment. One person who knows the contents of the written complaint sent to the inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.

Many described a climate in which analysts felt they could not give a candid assessment of the situation in Iraq and Syria. Some felt it was a product of commanders protecting their career advancement by putting the best spin on the war.

Some reports crafted by the analysts that were too negative in their assessment of the war were sent back down the chain of the command or not shared up the chain, several analysts said. Still others, feeling the climate around them, self-censored so their reports affirmed already-held beliefs.

“While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process. The Intelligence Community routinely provides a wide range of subjective assessments related to the current security environment. These products and the analysis that they present are absolutely vital to our efforts, particularly given the incredibly complex nature of the multi-front fights that are ongoing now in Iraq and Syria,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, U.S. CENTCOM spokesman. “Senior civilian and military leadership consider these assessments during planning and decision-making, along with information gained from various other sources, to include the insights provided by commanders on the ground and other key advisors, intelligence collection assets, and previous experience.”

Sounds like the implication is that the problem originates not necessarily from the Obama administration, but from the Pentagon.

As an aside, are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf, Southpaw?

Davian93
09-10-2015, 09:05 PM
Good thing nobody ever messed around with Intel during the Bush years...with an Administration like that, it might have caused an vastly expensive and completely unnecessary war in Iraq.


Oh shit.

Southpaw2012
09-11-2015, 11:09 AM
I'm not saying that there's nothing here, but let's go back and look at the original article that is sourced by your yahoo feed:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html



Sounds like the implication is that the problem originates not necessarily from the Obama administration, but from the Pentagon.

As an aside, are you familiar with the boy who cried wolf, Southpaw?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/somethings-wrong-isis-intelligence-scandal-132000086.html

There is also that. This administration has been full of crap since day 1, so what is surprising about this? Especially since Obama came out to announce how his strategies always work and how we have the JV squad in retreat.

As for the Bush administration and Iraq, I don't think I've tried defending that. Unlike most of you, I can see both sides and see when people in my party do stupid stuff. Clearly the Iraq war was a mistake, though I don't think it's for the reasons of there being no WMD's considering that evidence seems to indicate otherwise (liberal slanted NYTimes has come out to dispute the lack of WMD). The Iraq war was a mistake because it was horribly rushed out of an extreme reaction following 9/11. We also didn't think ahead to the future of what could happen if Saddam were to fall, which incidentally has led to the rise of ISIS (which then the Obama administration pulled troops which gave ISIS the boost it needed). So instead of blaming Bush for everything that is happening now, which is a very small amount, how about we hold your savior Obama in contempt for once and actually take a closer look at what's going on.

Nazbaque
09-11-2015, 11:44 AM
This reminds me of how the Cairhienin kings and queens were only popular for the first week of their rule. Where could Jordan have possibly gotten the idea?

GonzoTheGreat
09-11-2015, 01:41 PM
Clearly the Iraq war was a mistake, though I don't think it's for the reasons of there being no WMD's considering that evidence seems to indicate otherwise (liberal slanted NYTimes has come out to dispute the lack of WMD).You mean that Bush did find WMD there, but hushed it up?
Now why would he do that?

The Iraq war was a mistake because it was horribly rushed out of an extreme reaction following 9/11.Which, you may remember, was entirely the decision of the Bush administration. The rest of the world was quite willing to wait and let the weapons inspectors do their job.

We also didn't think ahead to the future of what could happen if Saddam were to fall, ...Actually, that was a deliberate policy from Rumsfeld. There were plans for what to do afterwards, and he dumped them into his trash bin. If you look back to earlier versions of this board, then you can find a discussion we had on that very subject before the war even started.

... which incidentally has led to the rise of ISIS (which then the Obama administration pulled troops which gave ISIS the boost it needed).There shouldn't have been an ISIS to give a boost to in the first place. Why did Bush create them?

So instead of blaming Bush for everything that is happening now, which is a very small amount, how about we hold your savior Obama in contempt for once and actually take a closer look at what's going on.Obama isn't my saviour; he is merely a slightly less right wing US president than there would have been if he had lost the election.

And, just for your info: I do hold him in contempt for keeping open the Guantanamo Concentration Camp and for his policy of extra-judicial assassinations (both of which he inherited from Bush, but he should've stopped them).

Kimon
09-11-2015, 05:31 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/somethings-wrong-isis-intelligence-scandal-132000086.html

There is also that. This administration has been full of crap since day 1, so what is surprising about this? Especially since Obama came out to announce how his strategies always work and how we have the JV squad in retreat.


No one thinks we're winning this war, or that we have ISIS on the ropes. Obama made the mistake of making that ridiculous claim in the beginning about them being a JV squad, but that was before they overran Mosul, before the Iraqi army fled and abandoned territory and equipment to them, before they became in many ways the dominant power in Syria. No one thinks, or has called them a JV squad since then. There simply hasn't been a feel of a propaganda push by the administration to misinform the public as to the threat or to the misrepresent just how ineffective the containment has been. I don't know how anyone could be paying attention and have gotten the opposite impression. So this doesn't have the feel of propaganda. Which presumably is why this Daily Beast story isn't transitioning over to reputable news sources and becoming a big story, because it isn't one. We aren't failing to do more because we have been hoodwinked into thinking that ISIS is on the run. We aren't doing more because no one as yet supports sending ground troops in enough numbers to actually solve the problem.

If you want to point to a current misinformation war that actually matters, point not to this, look to the Iran Deal, and to Israel's, and AIPAC's, misinformation effort, at great expense (AIPAC spent $30 million alone on advertising to try to kill it, and god knows how much buying, or keeping bought, corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle) to undercut perhaps the greatest diplomatic achievement of this young 21st Century.

Davian93
09-11-2015, 08:15 PM
liberal slanted NYTimes has come out to dispute the lack of WMD

Um...NO IT DIDN'T. It said that we found really old expired mustard gas shells from the 1980s and ZERO evidence of an active program. It basically called out Bush/Cheney, etc as giant liars. Try actually reading the articles you reference.

Davian93
09-11-2015, 08:17 PM
No one thinks we're winning this war, or that we have ISIS on the ropes. Obama made the mistake of making that ridiculous claim in the beginning about them being a JV squad, but that was before they overran Mosul, before the Iraqi army fled and abandoned territory and equipment to them, before they became in many ways the dominant power in Syria. No one thinks, or has called them a JV squad since then. There simply hasn't been a feel of a propaganda push by the administration to misinform the public as to the threat or to the misrepresent just how ineffective the containment has been. I don't know how anyone could be paying attention and have gotten the opposite impression. So this doesn't have the feel of propaganda. Which presumably is why this Daily Beast story isn't transitioning over to reputable news sources and becoming a big story, because it isn't one. We aren't failing to do more because we have been hoodwinked into thinking that ISIS is on the run. We aren't doing more because no one as yet supports sending ground troops in enough numbers to actually solve the problem.

If you want to point to a current misinformation war that actually matters, point not to this, look to the Iran Deal, and to Israel's, and AIPAC's, misinformation effort, at great expense (AIPAC spent $30 million alone on advertising to try to kill it, and god knows how much buying, or keeping bought, corrupt politicians on both sides of the aisle) to undercut perhaps the greatest diplomatic achievement of this young 21st Century.

Outside of a few strategic nukes, I don't see how we could stop killing in that part of the world. And even that "solution" would be more of a "Kill them all, God will know His own" type of one as we'd have to kill every single person there to stop it.

This is the kind of shit that happens when you kick over an anthill with no long term plans or exit strategy.

Kimon
09-14-2015, 07:06 PM
The Russians have been getting more involved in Syria in support of Assad recently.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34252810

"We have seen indications in recent days that Russia has moved people and things into the area around Latakia and the air base there that suggests that it intends to establish some sort of a forward air operating base," Mr Davis said on Monday.
He added that the US was concerned that Russian military moves could come into conflict with US and coalition air strikes that were being conducted in Syria against IS.

US officials also fear that the stepped-up Russian support will fortify the regime of President Bashar al-Assad at a time when it has been losing on the battlefield and will complicate recent efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher in New York reports.


I must confess that I hope this is diplomatic code for us being quietly happy that the Russians are intervening more actively, and especially happy that if Assad holds on to power, that it would be done with Russian fingerprints rather than American. I still don't see any preferable alternative to Assad, and sometimes the devil you know...

That, and I must admit, that I am strongly of the opinion that Erdogan and Turkey needs to have its efforts here thwarted. If Assad does fall, it would be an injustice if an independent Kurdistan, even if just encompassing the Kurdish zones in Iraq and Syria, was not created.

Ivhon
09-14-2015, 07:17 PM
No no no. This is just more evidence of this President's lilly-livered foreign policy.

What we need is a good show of force here. We can't let Putin think we are a bunch of pushovers. We need to secure that airspace and shoot those planes down if they violate.

That'll teach em.

Kimon
09-14-2015, 07:23 PM
No no no. This is just more evidence of this President's lilly-livered foreign policy.

What we need is a good show of force here. We can't let Putin think we are a bunch of pushovers. We need to secure that airspace and shoot those planes down if they violate.

That'll teach em.

We could even train a bunch of mujahideen to fight the Russians for us. I mean all these ISIS and al-Nusra dudes are just hanging around. It would be just like what we did in Afghanistan back in the early 80s. What could possibly go wrong?

Davian93
09-14-2015, 09:13 PM
https://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/reagan-with-afghan-mujahideen-1985.jpg?w=400

If Ronald Reagan is wrong, I DONT WANNA BE RIGHT!!!

GonzoTheGreat
09-15-2015, 04:52 AM
https://progressivecynic.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/reagan-with-afghan-mujahideen-1985.jpg?w=400
Slave holding male chauvinist pigs. Can't fault Ronnie's perception here, can you?
He might have been a bit more explicit with what he meant, though, since I am not sure everyone really caught his meaning.

Ozymandias
09-15-2015, 05:41 PM
You mean that Bush did find WMD there, but hushed it up?
Now why would he do that?

Excuse me. They DID find WMD's, and the fact was most certainly not hushed up. They found a number of degraded chemical weapons; the fact that the weapons were inoperational does not belie the fact that the Bush Administration was unequivocally right that there were undisclosed WMD in Iraq, and we could hardly have ascertained that they were not functional if weapons inspectors weren't given access to them (which they weren't).

Which, you may remember, was entirely the decision of the Bush administration. The rest of the world was quite willing to wait and let the weapons inspectors do their job.

This is also blatantly untrue. Russia and France were fine, because (very probably) Russian and (certainly) French officials were receiving kickbacks from the Saddam regime via Oil for Food and thus had a vested and corrupt interest in keeping Saddam in power.

For all that the US and UK acted "unilaterally" no one seems to think that France and Russia were acting equally so, and for demonstrably more corrupt reasons.

More importantly, and to the point you made, no one thought the weapons inspectors were doing their job. This is because Iraq was in material breach of its obligations to disclose its weapons programs. Resolution 1441 (2002) was unanimously adopted. So enough of this nonsense that everything was hunky dory. The UN had already condemned Iraq for being in violation of its obligations and even references the fact that the UN had previously authorized member states to use "any means necessary" to uphold the original resolution regarding Iraq. It pains me to agree with Southpaw on anything, but this is not a debatable point. UNMOVIC was unarguably NOT doing its job well, because it was not being allowed to by Iraqi officials.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

Actually, that was a deliberate policy from Rumsfeld. There were plans for what to do afterwards, and he dumped them into his trash bin. If you look back to earlier versions of this board, then you can find a discussion we had on that very subject before the war even started.

I think there is a difference between "deliberate policy" and "total lack of policy," but in general, agreed.

There shouldn't have been an ISIS to give a boost to in the first place. Why did Bush create them?

And, just for your info: I do hold him in contempt for keeping open the Guantanamo Concentration Camp and for his policy of extra-judicial assassinations (both of which he inherited from Bush, but he should've stopped them).

I assume that includes Bin Laden? How does one judicially bring to justice a wanted fugitive hiding with the tacit aid of the nation-state in which he (or she) is located? Pakistan didn't extradite the known criminal living in their midst... there is no "judicial" way to get rid of him.

Ozymandias
09-15-2015, 05:55 PM
Um...NO IT DIDN'T. It said that we found really old expired mustard gas shells from the 1980s and ZERO evidence of an active program. It basically called out Bush/Cheney, etc as giant liars. Try actually reading the articles you reference.

I've read this article and it betrays its own bias because it very much exonerates Bush and Cheney from any possible claim of lying. We found undisclosed WMD. What more needs be said? It obviously cannot be asserted that we should have known these weapons were inactive, because we weren't made aware of them. The fact that they do (did) not work is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Saddam was not providing comprehensive access to his weapons' stores, and whether he did so knowingly or accidentally, that is still a material violation of his treaty obligations.

The facts. WMDs existed that we were not aware of. Saddam was obligated to make us aware of them, so that we could verify that they were not usable. He did not do so. We were authorized to use ALL means necessary to enforce Resolution 1441. Thus, our actions were perfectly justified, even knowing after the fact that those WMDs were not active.

Furthermore, it is instructive to remember the comments of Mr. Blix at the time. To paraphrase - Iraqi officials had not been forthcoming about WMDs, that the threat of real military action had actually produced results, and that there were "vast stores" of unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons.

Davian93
09-15-2015, 07:50 PM
We went in looking for an active chemical weapons program...we found some old basically discarded shells in a random warehouse.

Not exactly the same thing or an exoneration of Bush/Cheney.

Ozymandias
09-15-2015, 08:29 PM
We went in looking for an active chemical weapons program...we found some old basically discarded shells in a random warehouse.

Not exactly the same thing or an exoneration of Bush/Cheney.

We went in looking for an active chemical weapons program because there was a general consensus that Saddam's officials had been deliberately unhelpful and had not been honest in what they were showing/telling international inspectors. Saddam had a large chemical weapons stockpile at one point. Between the end of the Iran-Iraq War and the beginning of inspections, a large part of that cache vanished. It was perfectly within reason to assume that a dictator who had previously built and used WMDs would be willing to do so again, and the actions of his regime in denying UNMOVIC access to stockpiles of weapons only furthered that suspicion. The UN Security Council agreed, FYI.

At that point, we were both legally and morally justified in using force to carry out the provisions of Res. 661 (1990).

My point, I guess, is that while it may be true that Bush & Cheney & Co were wrong that there was an active WMD program in Iraq, the presence of undeclared stockpiles of weapons proves that they were right in their general assertion that Saddam was not being honest with the UN or the world, and justified their insistence that armed action be used to enforce previously agreed upon international treaties/sanctions pertaining to Saddam's perfidy.

So enough about Bush lying or manipulating the country into war. He never claimed there were nuclear weapons in Iraq, and in retrospect, his claims about chemical weapons were entirely justified; no, not an active program, but he was right that Saddam was hiding weapons, and there was no way to know their state of readiness without forcing Saddam to disclose said weapons.

Davian93
09-15-2015, 08:50 PM
It wasn't a stockpile...it was a small amount of very old, unusable shells that were missed after the initial Gulf War...probably by accident given that they weren't even maintained or kept up with.

GonzoTheGreat
09-16-2015, 05:46 AM
The facts. WMDs existed that we were not aware of.A (possibly relevant) extra fact is that as far as we know, Saddam wasn't aware of them either.

At the end of Quwait adventure, he gave orders that amounted to "dump all traces of WMD, quickly" and those orders were carried out. One of the side effects of that was that there was often no documentation of where those things were dumped (because such documents would count as traces themselves, obviously), and one spot in the desert often looks the same as the next. So in many cases, no one knew where the stuff had gone. Then came the weapons inspectors, who wanted to know precisely what had happened to what and when. Which was a problem for Saddam, since his lack of documentation now meant that he could not produce a paper trail and couldn't show the remnants either, since he had no clue where they were. Later, when GWB created enough chaos, some of those dump sites were found again, and what was taken out of them was then used to "prove" that Saddam had lied.

Saddam was obligated to make us aware of them, so that we could verify that they were not usable. He did not do so.Because, as I've just explained to you, it was logically impossible for him to do this. He did not know. He could not tell what he did not know.

We were authorized to use ALL means necessary to enforce Resolution 1441. Thus, our actions were perfectly justified, even knowing after the fact that those WMDs were not active.\Using that same reasoning, ISIS is also authorised to use all means necessary (including nuclear weapons on US cities) to force the US government to tell where Saddam's nukes are. After all, your ignorance is not a shield any more than it is for Saddam, and your government has stated very explicitly on multiple occasions that it knows precisely where the WMD are. (As Rumsfeld said: "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat".)

So if an invasion of Iraq based on "provide evidence for that which you are ignorant of" is justified, then so is an invasion of the USA. You simply can not have it both ways; your country is now fair game for anyone who wants to claim to be searching for Saddam's WMD.
If you don't like that, then impeach SCOTUS in 2000 after they appointed Bush instead of Gore.

GonzoTheGreat
09-16-2015, 06:46 AM
Another Al Qaeda victory (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34266389). Ignorance triumphs over reason. Naturally, this was in Texas, though other places will also jump on this band wagon whenever they see an opportunity.

Ozymandias
09-16-2015, 11:16 AM
A (possibly relevant) extra fact is that as far as we know, Saddam wasn't aware of them either.

It is entirely irrelevant. Saddam was not ordered to turn over WMDs to the best of his ability. He was ordered to turn them ALL over. His failure to do so may be a reflection of him not knowing (which is not excusable... who knows where those end up if he’s just dropping them off the backs of trucks willy nilly) or of him deliberately ordering them to be hidden somewhere he didn't know about so he could lie with a straight face (very possible).

The point being, there were WMDs in Iraq. The UN had a duty to remove them.

And Dav, they found hundreds of shells, not "a few". That is a stockpile.

Because, as I've just explained to you, it was logically impossible for him to do this. He did not know. He could not tell what he did not know.

And as anyone with common sense realizes, this is the worst possible excuse for someone like Saddam. For all we know he told his cronies to dump a whole bunch of weapons somewhere and not tell him, so he couldn’t technically be accused of not disclosing the location of weapons he knew about. If the only burden of proof was “whatever Saddam knows about,” anyone can see that it would have been extremely ineffective in disarming Iraq. As per a UN Security Council Resolution, Iraq was forced to disclose ALL its weapons of mass destruction. There was no mention of “to the extent of your knowledge”. Yes, I get that it is theoretically impossible for Saddam to disclose that which he does not know, but knowing what we know/knew about him, holding him responsible for ALL weapons is logically and logistically more feasible than giving him such a blatant way of avoiding disarmament.

Using that same reasoning, ISIS is also authorised to use all means necessary (including nuclear weapons on US cities) to force the US government to tell where Saddam's nukes are. After all, your ignorance is not a shield any more than it is for Saddam, and your government has stated very explicitly on multiple occasions that it knows precisely where the WMD are. (As Rumsfeld said: "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat".)

ISIS is a terrorist organization and thus is not empowered by the UN to do anything, under any circumstance. But if you can point me to the UN Security Council, or General Assembly, Resolution requiring the US to pony up evidence, then I will agree with you that some other UN member has the right to demand, backed up by threat of force, that the US disclose what it knows/knew.

And if you’ll excuse me for indulging in a bit of relativism… being wrong/not knowing a piece of information concerning chemical weapons possessed by another state is both more excusable and far more likely than a highly militarized dictatorship losing track of hundreds of valuable chemical weapons.

So if an invasion of Iraq based on "provide evidence for that which you are ignorant of" is justified, then so is an invasion of the USA. You simply can not have it both ways; your country is now fair game for anyone who wants to claim to be searching for Saddam's WMD.

No, that is not what the invasion of Iraq was based on, as you well know. Your straw man argument has no power here (Gandalf the Grey). The invasion of Iraq was based on the fact that Saddam was required to disclose all WMDs and manufacturing facilities to UN inspectors. He failed in that. Not only did he fail in it, he was deliberately obfuscating the state of affairs in Iraq. That you see a moral or legal equivalence here is disturbing and simplistic.

If the UN Security Council decides tomorrow that the US is required to provide evidence of this “knowledge”, and we refuse to provide access to those archives which might contain such documentation, then I will grant that your analogy is more correct. Until that happens, shut it. You’re wrong on this. Weapons were found. Whether Saddam knew or not is (a) impossible to determine, and (b) completely immaterial. To touch briefly on the first point; there was a broad international consensus that Saddam was being dishonest about his knowledge. So any further statement from him on the subject categorically cannot be trusted. He was lying for over a decade about his weapons’ programmes. And all of a sudden his denials take on new validity? Please. As for the second point. The terms of Resolution 1441 (2002) made no exception for knowledge; it required the disclosure of ALL WMDs. I won’t even quote the text, because almost every single section of it comprehensively refutes your points (that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations, of the latitude allowed in remedying this to member states, of the requirements that Iraq was then called upon to comply with, etc etc.) but I encourage you to read it. Easily googled.

This is tiresome. We can go back and forth all day about this, but at the end of the day, both I and the UN Security Council, an organization that was being actively bribed (albeit indirectly) to veto any anti-Saddam resolution, agree that Saddam was less than honest about his knowledge of Iraq’s WMD program. Hell, we found a couple dozen warplanes buried in the desert too. Are you going to claim that those were also misplaced? We KNOW Saddam was dishonest, we KNOW he hid a great deal of war materiel to keep the Allied powers from finding it. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that even if he didn’t know about the specific cache of chemical weapons found, that he certainly was aware that such weapons were being hidden around the country. And again, he was bound to provide such a level of access and openness that UN inspectors had no doubts or suspicions that they were being misled. And even in clearing that laughably low bar, he failed. There was every legal justification for intervention, and if we were capable of finding weapons buried in Iraq, than certainly Saddam should have known as well. Even if he didn’t it does not matter, because whether or not its logically consistent, he was obligated to disclose every chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon within the country.

Davian93
09-17-2015, 08:52 PM
If the UN Security Council decides tomorrow that the US is required to provide evidence of this “knowledge”, and we refuse to provide access to those archives which might contain such documentation, then I will grant that your analogy is more correct.

To be fair, we'd veto any such move...


Note: I know you're not serious, I'm just joking about our Perm Seat on the Security Council.

GonzoTheGreat
09-18-2015, 03:55 AM
If the UN Security Council decides tomorrow that the US is required to provide evidence of this “knowledge”, and we refuse to provide access to those archives which might contain such documentation, then I will grant that your analogy is more correct. Until that happens, shut it.
The UN Security Council is not actually relevant for this. After all, if it had been, then the invasion would not have taken place at all, since Bush failed to get UNSC approval when he tried. Then he went in anyway, as anyone else now could do with the USA.

So, either admit that the invasion was illegal and all the soldiers who took part in it are criminals, or you would have to admit that an invasion of the USA is also fully justified (though not realistic, I admit).
Heck; Mexico could claim that all those people it sends over (according to Trump) are looking for the WMD evidence. That'd make those "illegals" legal, wouldn't it?

Ozymandias
09-18-2015, 03:40 PM
The UN Security Council is not actually relevant for this. After all, if it had been, then the invasion would not have taken place at all, since Bush failed to get UNSC approval when he tried. Then he went in anyway, as anyone else now could do with the USA.

With the full disclaimer that I am not an attorney specializing in international law, and therefore have no real valid opinion either way, I don't think your right. From the simple layman's point of view, the following text is laid out in 678 (1990): " Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution," which pretty strongly implies that no UNSC is required.

This is referenced in 1441 (2002). My point being, there was already a UNSC resolution authorizing member states to take unilateral action to uphold the UN's dictates. The point isn't lost on you, I hope. Yes, the subsequent action was sent to the UN to pass muster and gain broad consensus, but to my (not particularly legally oriented) mind, the US or any other state that could prove that Saddam was not complying with the requirements placed on him was then justified in intervening. Resolution 678 (1990) makes that clear in a different recital from the one I quoted.

So, either admit that the invasion was illegal and all the soldiers who took part in it are criminals, or you would have to admit that an invasion of the USA is also fully justified (though not realistic, I admit).
Heck; Mexico could claim that all those people it sends over (according to Trump) are looking for the WMD evidence. That'd make those "illegals" legal, wouldn't it?

I believe I just gave you my conditions for admitting that an invasion of the US would be justified. They have not been met. So enough of that until you can provide some evidence that the US is in direct contravention of a unanimous Security Council resolution. I have provided you with several specific examples of how and why the US was authorized to use force to make Saddam comply with UNMOVIC. I have seen no refutation.

Also, incidentally, all of this ignores the overwhelming moral and ethical responsibility of overthrowing Saddam. So there's that on my side as well.

Davian93
09-18-2015, 04:14 PM
Also, incidentally, all of this ignores the overwhelming moral and ethical responsibility of overthrowing Saddam. So there's that on my side as well

And it all worked out really well too...at least we didn't create a failed state where religious fanatics routinely butcher, rape, enslave its inhabitants while destroying eons old historical sites and basically creating an end times scenario both there and in Syria. Because that'd suck.

Ivhon
09-18-2015, 04:25 PM
"Moral Responsibility" is one of the scariest terms out there....

Nazbaque
09-18-2015, 06:28 PM
"Moral Responsibility" is one of the scariest terms out there....

Wasn't manifest destiny another of those moral responsibilities?

Kimon
09-19-2015, 10:07 AM
Not that this most recent diversion back to Saddam and that over-debated NYT's article isn't fascinating, but back in Syria...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34298826

Mr Kerry said there was a need to "use this moment when Russia appears more committed to doing more" against IS, to move towards a diplomatic solution.
"We're prepared to negotiate. Is Assad prepared to negotiate, really negotiate? Is Russia prepared to bring him to the table?"

Ahead of the meeting he had said the US shared the "same goals" with Russia - a long-time ally of President Assad - in the battle against IS.
The US has called for Mr Assad to go, but on Saturday Mr Kerry reaffirmed the US position that this removal "doesn't have to be on day one or month one.... There is a process by which all the parties have to come together to reach an understanding of how this can best be achieved."
Mr Hammond said the Syrian president could not be part of Syria's long-term future "but the modality and timing has to be part of a political solution".

GonzoTheGreat
09-19-2015, 11:06 AM
Let's suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that Assad does not actually want to go. Then what would he have to negotiate about?

Kimon
09-19-2015, 11:33 AM
Let's suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that Assad does not actually want to go. Then what would he have to negotiate about?

Partitioning. Even with Russian and Iranian backing, Assad can't retake or hold all of Syria. But he could hold Damascus and the Mediterranean coast - his old power center was Latakia on the coast. Then you try to negotiate a settlement between the Kurds and the Turks. Let the Kurds rule the 1/3 that they currently hold, perhaps internationally recognize that along with the Kurdish zone in Iraq as one unified Kurdistan. Allow the Turks to "encourage" the Turkish Kurds to emigrate from Turkey to this new state, similar to how the population exchange worked between Turkey and Greece a hundred years ago. Not a great option either, but perhaps the better than continuing what has essentially become a civil war within and outside of Turkey between them and the Kurds. Then the remainder of Syria, encompassing most of the non-Kurd Sunni, is ruled by some Turk vassal, hopefully not ISIS or al-Nusra. Then you try to complete the defeat of ISIS by bringing in the support of the Sunni tribes in Iraq by promising them that they can unite with this Sunni section of Syria, allowing them to cut ties with the Shia dominated Iraq. Hell, we could even use some old names to describe these three new states - Koile Syria (the Shia zone in Damascus and along the coast) under Assad, Assyria (Sunni) in the center, perhaps with its capital at Mosul, and then Kurdistan.

That's what I'd be trying to negotiate. And, if stability is ever reasserted, perhaps eventually most of those Syrian refugees can finally return home, or at least to one of those three new versions of "home".

It could be similar to the denouement of the Yugoslavia mess back in the '90s.

Rand al'Fain
09-19-2015, 12:40 PM
Partitioning. Even with Russian and Iranian backing, Assad can't retake or hold all of Syria. But he could hold Damascus and the Mediterranean coast - his old power center was Latakia on the coast. Then you try to negotiate a settlement between the Kurds and the Turks. Let the Kurds rule the 1/3 that they currently hold, perhaps internationally recognize that along with the Kurdish zone in Iraq as one unified Kurdistan. Allow the Turks to "encourage" the Turkish Kurds to emigrate from Turkey to this new state, similar to how the population exchange worked between Turkey and Greece a hundred years ago. Not a great option either, but perhaps the better than continuing what has essentially become a civil war within and outside of Turkey between them and the Kurds. Then the remainder of Syria, encompassing most of the non-Kurd Sunni, is ruled by some Turk vassal, hopefully not ISIS or al-Nusra. Then you try to complete the defeat of ISIS by bringing in the support of the Sunni tribes in Iraq by promising them that they can unite with this Sunni section of Syria, allowing them to cut ties with the Shia dominated Iraq. Hell, we could even use some old names to describe these three new states - Koile Syria (the Shia zone in Damascus and along the coast) under Assad, Assyria (Sunni) in the center, perhaps with its capital at Mosul, and then Kurdistan.

That's what I'd be trying to negotiate. And, if stability is ever reasserted, perhaps eventually most of those Syrian refugees can finally return home, or at least to one of those three new versions of "home".

It could be similar to the denouement of the Yugoslavia mess back in the '90s.
The problem with the Kurds controlling that part of Syria is that Erdogan is vehemently opposed to it, so much so that he began bombing the Kurdish forces fighting ISIS. The last thing he and his lackeys want is an actual Kurdistan.

GonzoTheGreat
09-19-2015, 12:47 PM
Then you try to negotiate a settlement between the Kurds and the Turks.
My apologies. Until now, I hadn't spotted that you were being sarcastic. Well played, sir, very well played. Thanks for clueing me in eventually.

Just in case you're actually serious: start with Turkey first. If you actually manage that, then pushing Assad down the drain will be easy, so then you won't even need to negotiate with him.
If you do manage it, you might want to consider solving the Israel-Palestina mess next month.

Kimon
09-19-2015, 03:19 PM
My apologies. Until now, I hadn't spotted that you were being sarcastic. Well played, sir, very well played. Thanks for clueing me in eventually.

Just in case you're actually serious: start with Turkey first. If you actually manage that, then pushing Assad down the drain will be easy, so then you won't even need to negotiate with him.
If you do manage it, you might want to consider solving the Israel-Palestina mess next month.

Not that you ever seem to be serious, but Erdogan was in power when the last cease fire with the PKK was signed in 2013. Achieving more than a cease fire at present would be difficult, but thinking that not even a cease fire could be achieved again is silly.

Kimon
09-19-2015, 03:50 PM
The problem with the Kurds controlling that part of Syria is that Erdogan is vehemently opposed to it, so much so that he began bombing the Kurdish forces fighting ISIS. The last thing he and his lackeys want is an actual Kurdistan.

If it coincided with the removal of their own Kurdish population I doubt they would be so hesitant. This is what happened in between Greece and Turkey back in the '20s. That exchange however also had some financial inducements built into it. Where the money would come from would obviously be an issue. Not an ideal solution for the Kurds, yet on the other hand, if you were a Kurd would you prefer to remain in Turkey, or to live in an independent Kurdish state? They'd obviously prefer to just turn their own part of Turkey into part of that independent Kurdistan, but that's not going to happen.

The Unreasoner
09-19-2015, 08:54 PM
They'd obviously prefer to just turn their own part of Turkey into part of that independent Kurdistan, but that's not going to happen.
Unless you can prove to Erdogan that this is true, I agree that your solution is a fantasy. In fact, he'd probably want something stronger: proof that the Kurds won't even try.

As Rand a'Fain said, Erdogan is not 'hesitant' in providing support to (even a Syrian) Kurdistan, he is active in opposing it.

Kimon
09-19-2015, 09:25 PM
Unless you can prove to Erdogan that this is true, I agree that your solution is a fantasy. In fact, he'd probably want something stronger: proof that the Kurds won't even try.

As Rand a'Fain said, Erdogan is not 'hesitant' in providing support to (even a Syrian) Kurdistan, he is active in opposing it.

Yet he has put in place a fruitful economic relationship with Iraqi Kurdistan. His fears seem mostly born of concern that Kurdish success in Syria feeds Kurdish unrest inside Turkey. Hence his refusal to differentiate between the PKK and the YPG, and his alarm at both the success of the YPG in the Syrian Civil War, and his alarm at the success of the HDP in the last election inside Turkey. That success of the HDP and of the YPG seemed to precipitate his breaking of the cease fire with the PKK, and his decision to treat all three organizations as one and the same. Yet he hasn't broken off his economic relations with the Iraqi Kurds. So he can be pragmatic.

He obviously doesn't want either the Kurds or Assad to prevail in Syria, and while open Russian involvement in the war doesn't ensure Assad's survival, it does certainly buy him some time, and at least increase the likelihood of him holding onto western Syria and the coast. We could take advantage of that to try to achieve something for the Kurds. If we more openly support the Kurds, while giving him a chance to also take advantage - by encouraging his own Kurds to emigrate into a Kurdistan that is entirely outside of Turkey. How would that not be a net win for him both politically and in terms of the long term stability of that liminal zone occupied at present by the Kurds in southern Turkey? Finding the money would still be a problem, and the Turks would likely balk there. Maybe the IMF could be convinced to take a role in that.

GonzoTheGreat
09-20-2015, 04:52 AM
He could deal with Iraqi Kurdistan in a way that was acceptable to him because there there are two Kurdish parties, which are rather hostile towards each other. Thus, he could trust that they would fight each other rather than fight for an independent Kurdistan, and he was mostly right about that. But with neither Syria nor with Turkey is this the case; so there either the Kurds are suppressed or they start working towards independence.
There would, of course, also be the possibility of letting them simply be citizens of Turkey (or Syria), with the right to use their own language and such; but that possibility vanished decades ago already, so this is no more than a theoretical option which no one takes seriously.

I doubt the IMF would be eager to finance a Trail of Tears (or whatever you want to call this proposed repeat of the Armenian Genocide). I could be wrong, though; the IMF isn't always as squeaky clean as I would like it to be.

Kimon
09-20-2015, 09:14 AM
He could deal with Iraqi Kurdistan in a way that was acceptable to him because there there are two Kurdish parties, which are rather hostile towards each other. Thus, he could trust that they would fight each other rather than fight for an independent Kurdistan, and he was mostly right about that. But with neither Syria nor with Turkey is this the case; so there either the Kurds are suppressed or they start working towards independence.
There would, of course, also be the possibility of letting them simply be citizens of Turkey (or Syria), with the right to use their own language and such; but that possibility vanished decades ago already, so this is no more than a theoretical option which no one takes seriously.

I doubt the IMF would be eager to finance a Trail of Tears (or whatever you want to call this proposed repeat of the Armenian Genocide). I could be wrong, though; the IMF isn't always as squeaky clean as I would like it to be.

The population exchange between the Greeks and the Turks in the '20s was mostly financed by foreign loans. It was moreover part of the negotiations made within the Treaty of Lausanne. Comparing this to the Trail of Tears is a reductio ad absurdum even for you. The Kurds were the only major ethnic group in the Middle East not provided with their own nation following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Unless Turkey somehow finds itself defeated again by a foreign alliance, it is unlikely to again allow a redrawing of its own borders, thus leaving a creation of such a state outside its borders, in chaos-ridden Syria and Iraq, the only possibility.

The Unreasoner
09-20-2015, 10:17 PM
The population exchange between the Greeks and the Turks in the '20s was mostly financed by foreign loans. It was moreover part of the negotiations made within the Treaty of Lausanne. Comparing this to the Trail of Tears is a reductio ad absurdum even for you. The Kurds were the only major ethnic group in the Middle East not provided with their own nation following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Unless Turkey somehow finds itself defeated again by a foreign alliance, it is unlikely to again allow a redrawing of its own borders, thus leaving a creation of such a state outside its borders, in chaos-ridden Syria and Iraq, the only possibility.
I'm not sure it's quite a reductio ad absurdum. What levers do you imagine Erdogan will use to get rid of the Kurds? Would you leave America just for a token payment (and why in the hell would the IMF agree to fund something so...unpalatable)? Why would the Kurds who stay agree not to seek autonomy for their territory in Turkey? Why would Erdogan believe them?

And most importantly: Russia believes in making facts on the ground. Erdogan is a paranoid thug who holds most of the leverage concerning the Kurds. Why would the Sunni Syrians (or the Russians) agree to create a Turkish vassal state (when Turkey has done pretty much jack shit to help either)? What makes you think any of the parties involved will start acting rationally? Assad, Putin, and Erdogan are pretty much the three biggest pieces of shit who lead countries in the world (other than Kim Jong Un), they're not going to agree to anything unless they get something in return. Your proposal gives Assad his head and Turkey a puppet state. What does Russia get out of it? Don't say Assad keeping power. They don't need to turn over half of Syria (to a NATO power) to do that, if they really get involved. Assad's still the only one with an air force (excluding the militaries involved in airstrikes against ISIS). While America may have hinted at a willingness to strike at government targets to help the Kurds, we won't extend that to Russian targets. Being able to name the hypothetical countries doesn't make them any more real.

Kimon
09-20-2015, 10:58 PM
I'm not sure it's quite a reductio ad absurdum. What levers do you imagine Erdogan will use to get rid of the Kurds?


Two obvious ones - money to rebuild in the new land, and autonomy, their own state. Admittedly, Erdogan has made some odd choices. Earlier in the Syrian Civil War many Kurds tried to cross over into Syria to help fight alongside the YPG. It was the perfect opportunity to rid himself of a problem at home. Let them succeed in Syria, maybe even help them create a state there, but with the caveat that it must be there, not including the heavily Kurdish populated areas within Turkey. That might seem another fantasy, yet he was making peace, and a lucrative economic relationship with the Iraqi Kurds. Moreover, he had a cease fire that was working with the PKK. This was his chance to either get rid of a problem, or to win them over entirely through a combination of economic and military support. Instead he picked an unnecessary fight with the PKK (a force which had also mostly already left Turkey and removed itself to Iraqi Kurdistan - hence his airstrikes in Iraqi airspace as well as into Syria), and gambled that ISIS could finish off the YPG for him. That policy got him a civil war at home. Smaller and far less destabilizing than the one across the border, but still, he could have exported much of his problem. Perhaps too late to repair the recent damage, but one the other hand, recent friction may well make more Kurds conducive to the idea of leaving, especially if provided with their own country to relocate to, and with money to start over there.

Would you leave America just for a token payment (and why in the hell would the IMF agree to fund something so...unpalatable)?

Is my country treating me like a terrorist? Are they imposing curfews and sending the military into my city - as they did recently in Cizre? Right now they have but two choices - fight or surrender. But if they had that third option? Do you really think none would leave, if leaving meant moving a few dozen miles, but into your own Kurdish state? As for the IMF, if it would stop the fighting, and create finally a state for the Kurds, why not? Why is this so unpalatable to suggest creating a Kurdish state? And if it is created, how is it unpalatable to suggest that money be provided to Kurds in Turkey to relocate into it?

Why would the Kurds who stay agree not to seek autonomy for their territory in Turkey? Why would Erdogan believe them?

They might, but there would be fewer of them, and as the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds would presumably be united into one state, those economic links between the Iraqi Kurds that have led to a mutually beneficial relationship between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds would continue to temper the ability of a newly created Kurdistan to foment or support strife back amongst the Kurds remaining in Turkey as they would be dependent still on those pipelines they built through Turkey as the lifeblood of the economy. Why fight a battle with bullets, when you can win it with money.

And most importantly: Russia believes in making facts on the ground. Erdogan is a paranoid thug who holds most of the leverage concerning the Kurds. Why would the Sunni Syrians (or the Russians) agree to create a Turkish vassal state (when Turkey has done pretty much jack shit to help either)? What makes you think any of the parties involved will start acting rationally? Assad, Putin, and Erdogan are pretty much the three biggest pieces of shit who lead countries in the world (other than Kim Jong Un), they're not going to agree to anything unless they get something in return. Your proposal gives Assad his head and Turkey a puppet state. What does Russia get out of it? Don't say Assad keeping power. They don't need to turn over half of Syria (to a NATO power) to do that, if they really get involved. Assad's still the only one with an air force (excluding the militaries involved in airstrikes against ISIS). While America may have hinted at a willingness to strike at government targets to help the Kurds, we won't extend that to Russian targets. Being able to name the hypothetical countries doesn't make them any more real.

I'll admit, that on that point I was presuming the possibility of one of two eventualities - either an eventual ground invasion by Turkish forces to accompany their air war - less likely already, and perhaps rendered completely unnecessary if they can end their Kurdish problem without fighting. Or that they would be financing the rebels they thought most capable of winning. Money tends to buy influence, nay? Assad was in many ways a vassal of Russia and Iran. ISIS is unlikely to allow any foreign power to attach strings, and play the marionette, which is why everyone is coming around to the opinion that they need to be dealt with in less pleasant ways. But other rebels? They may be more susceptible to both outside money, and an outside supply of arms. The Turks are a likely, and seemingly willing, supplier of both.

As for the Russians, if they can keep their puppet holding part of Syria, and keeping their access to the Mediterranean, Putin will have accomplished the two most important goals for Russia - Assad holding Damascus and Russia keeping its naval base at Tartus.

The Unreasoner
09-21-2015, 02:06 AM
Two obvious ones - money to rebuild in the new land, and autonomy, their own state. Admittedly, Erdogan has made some odd choices. Earlier in the Syrian Civil War many Kurds tried to cross over into Syria to help fight alongside the YPG. It was the perfect opportunity to rid himself of a problem at home. Let them succeed in Syria, maybe even help them create a state there, but with the caveat that it must be there, not including the heavily Kurdish populated areas within Turkey. That might seem another fantasy, yet he was making peace, and a lucrative economic relationship with the Iraqi Kurds. Moreover, he had a cease fire that was working with the PKK. This was his chance to either get rid of a problem, or to win them over entirely through a combination of economic and military support. Instead he picked an unnecessary fight with the PKK (a force which had also mostly already left Turkey and removed itself to Iraqi Kurdistan - hence his airstrikes in Iraqi airspace as well as into Syria), and gambled that ISIS could finish off the YPG for him. That policy got him a civil war at home. Smaller and far less destabilizing than the one across the border, but still, he could have exported much of his problem. Perhaps too late to repair the recent damage, but one the other hand, recent friction may well make more Kurds conducive to the idea of leaving, especially if provided with their own country to relocate to, and with money to start over there.
The Kurds have had some serious political gains in Turkey recently, and though there have been some (serious) setbacks, I expect a sizeable group would rather try to press those and eventually oust Erdogan from power. The current opposition would need the Kurds for their coalition, leading to a Turkey friendly to all Kurds. I expect many would prefer this route than the one that has them starting over in a country in such chaos that an ebola outbreak might actually improve the situation, no matter what money is thrown at them.

The Kurd's biggest problem right now is Erdogan, not ISIS.


Is my country treating me like a terrorist?Have you made any clocks recently?

As for the IMF, if it would stop the fighting, and create finally a state for the Kurds, why not? Why is this so unpalatable to suggest creating a Kurdish state? And if it is created, how is it unpalatable to suggest that money be provided to Kurds in Turkey to relocate into it?
I think the IMF would prefer Erdogan start acting like a civilized human being, rather than shell out billions enabling his bullshit. What kind of horrible precedent would this set?

They might, but there would be fewer of them, and as the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds would presumably be united into one state, those economic links between the Iraqi Kurds that have led to a mutually beneficial relationship between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds would continue to temper the ability of a newly created Kurdistan to foment or support strife back amongst the Kurds remaining in Turkey as they would be dependent still on those pipelines they built through Turkey as the lifeblood of the economy. Why fight a battle with bullets, when you can win it with money.
Again, its not only a question of 'would the Kurds fight?' but a question of whether or not Erdogan thinks the potential cost in suppressing such a rebellion is acceptably low.

I'll admit, that on that point I was presuming the possibility of one of two eventualities - either an eventual ground invasion by Turkish forces to accompany their air war - less likely already, and perhaps rendered completely unnecessary if they can end their Kurdish problem without fighting. Or that they would be financing the rebels they thought most capable of winning. Money tends to buy influence, nay? Assad was in many ways a vassal of Russia and Iran. ISIS is unlikely to allow any foreign power to attach strings, and play the marionette, which is why everyone is coming around to the opinion that they need to be dealt with in less pleasant ways. But other rebels? They may be more susceptible to both outside money, and an outside supply of arms. The Turks are a likely, and seemingly willing, supplier of both.
A ground invasion is pretty much a non-possibility. Assad poses no credible threat to Turkey; and ISIS and Turkey seem content to leave each other to their own devices, for the most part (which makes some sense: ISIS needs Turkey to maintain the 'porous' nature of the border, and Turkey is perfectly happy letting ISIS kill Shiites and Kurds). Maybe they'd be interested in arming and funding the rebels in the southern coalition, but they're a little late to that party. The Arab states already funding them would have a substantially better claim to 'puppetmaster', unless the Turkish aid is substantially higher. And why should Turkey bother? They hardly seem to care who prevails in Syria, so long as it's not the Kurds. And as far as the Turks are probably concerned: they have enough domestic problems to deal with already, and no compelling reason to intervene in a situation whose outcome they cannot substantially affect barring some massive effort. Especially when things seem to be unfolding in a satisfactory manner without their involvement. The one thing they wanted was to break up a possible contiguous region of Kurdish control, and they seem to have succeeded there already.

As for the Russians, if they can keep their puppet holding part of Syria, and keeping their access to the Mediterranean, Putin will have accomplished the two most important goals for Russia - Assad holding Damascus and Russia keeping its naval base at Tartus.
I think Russia will want more, and since they're the only major foreign power willing to take major action, they'll probably get it. They certainly won't accept a situation that has Assad boxed in by the American-loving Kurdistan and the NATO 'puppet-Syria'. Maybe they'd accept some other Sunni power as the dominating partner, but then that just raises another question (what does Turkey get out of it?).

Kimon
09-21-2015, 04:46 PM
The Kurds have had some serious political gains in Turkey recently, and though there have been some (serious) setbacks, I expect a sizeable group would rather try to press those and eventually oust Erdogan from power. The current opposition would need the Kurds for their coalition, leading to a Turkey friendly to all Kurds. I expect many would prefer this route than the one that has them starting over in a country in such chaos that an ebola outbreak might actually improve the situation, no matter what money is thrown at them.

The Kurd's biggest problem right now is Erdogan, not ISIS.

Have you made any clocks recently?

I think the IMF would prefer Erdogan start acting like a civilized human being, rather than shell out billions enabling his bullshit. What kind of horrible precedent would this set?

Again, its not only a question of 'would the Kurds fight?' but a question of whether or not Erdogan thinks the potential cost in suppressing such a rebellion is acceptably low.

A ground invasion is pretty much a non-possibility. Assad poses no credible threat to Turkey; and ISIS and Turkey seem content to leave each other to their own devices, for the most part (which makes some sense: ISIS needs Turkey to maintain the 'porous' nature of the border, and Turkey is perfectly happy letting ISIS kill Shiites and Kurds). Maybe they'd be interested in arming and funding the rebels in the southern coalition, but they're a little late to that party. The Arab states already funding them would have a substantially better claim to 'puppetmaster', unless the Turkish aid is substantially higher. And why should Turkey bother? They hardly seem to care who prevails in Syria, so long as it's not the Kurds. And as far as the Turks are probably concerned: they have enough domestic problems to deal with already, and no compelling reason to intervene in a situation whose outcome they cannot substantially affect barring some massive effort. Especially when things seem to be unfolding in a satisfactory manner without their involvement. The one thing they wanted was to break up a possible contiguous region of Kurdish control, and they seem to have succeeded there already.

I think Russia will want more, and since they're the only major foreign power willing to take major action, they'll probably get it. They certainly won't accept a situation that has Assad boxed in by the American-loving Kurdistan and the NATO 'puppet-Syria'. Maybe they'd accept some other Sunni power as the dominating partner, but then that just raises another question (what does Turkey get out of it?).

So, to summarize - I have suggested that the international community should have a role both diplomatically and financially in helping to create a Kurdish state. Reality on the ground would seem to raise the potential for the Kurdish zone in Syria to perhaps be the subject of negotiations in combination with the already existing Iraqi Kurdistan. That diplomatic window exists both due to the chaos in Syria from the civil war, the success of the Kurds in that internecine strife, and the recent entry into the mix of Russia, throwing off the current status quo, and perhaps diminishing Turkey's potential to engineer their desired outcome in that struggle - the defeat of both Assad and the YPG. The same potential is not however there for the Kurds in Turkey to break off from their current state, hence for them to join, they would need to relocate. Hence my suggestion of money to help in financing this movement of peoples, one which I have compared to what happened with the Greeks in Turkey in the 1920s.

For suggesting this, you and Gonzo are accusing me of supporting genocide. Meanwhile, you also assert that in your opinion they should stay and fight against Erdogan - a fight which they will lose unless help is given. I have suggested diplomatic and financial help. You apparently are offering nothing, neither diplomatic nor financial aid, and presumably also not military aid in their struggle against Turkey. Moreover, you assert that any such financial aid would set a "horrible precedent". Yet again, I'm the genocide enabler.

The Unreasoner
09-21-2015, 05:21 PM
So, to summarize - I have suggested that the international community should have a role both diplomatically and financially in helping to create a Kurdish state. Reality on the ground would seem to raise the potential for the Kurdish zone in Syria to perhaps be the subject of negotiations in combination with the already existing Iraqi Kurdistan. That diplomatic window exists both due to the chaos in Syria from the civil war, the success of the Kurds in that internecine strife, and the recent entry into the mix of Russia, throwing off the current status quo, and perhaps diminishing Turkey's potential to engineer their desired outcome in that struggle - the defeat of both Assad and the YPG. The same potential is not however there for the Kurds in Turkey to break off from their current state, hence for them to join, they would need to relocate. Hence my suggestion of money to help in financing this movement of peoples, one which I have compared to what happened with the Greeks in Turkey in the 1920s.

For suggesting this, you and Gonzo are accusing me of supporting genocide. Meanwhile, you also assert that in your opinion they should stay and fight against Erdogan - a fight which they will lose unless help is given. I have suggested diplomatic and financial help. You apparently are offering nothing, neither diplomatic nor financial aid, and presumably also not military aid in their struggle against Turkey. Moreover, you assert that any such financial aid would set a "horrible precedent". Yet again, I'm the genocide enabler.
This persecution complex doesn't suit you any better than it does Sodas. I don't know what Gonzo thinks, but I haven't accused you of supporting genocide. Just of supporting Assad.

I don't know what to do. Not really. Keep backing the Kurds and the FSA, keep pressing al-Nusra to moderate, flush out Khorosan. ISIS is horrible, but sufficiently horrible that no one (except Erdogan) is undermining the assorted campaigns against them.

The two complicated problems are Erdogan's actions against the Kurds and Assad being completely without legitimacy. Assad was fucked (the southern coalition would have driven him from Damascus pretty quickly), but now Russia is trying to avoid writing their entire influence in the area off by supporting him. So (since there will never be peace with Assad in power) Russia is prolonging the civil war and Erdogan is inadvertently aiding ISIS.

And I don't know how to address either of those.

But I don't want the IMF to set the precedent that if a country brutalizes and oppresses an ethnic minority, money will be found to get them out (giving the oppressor what they may have wanted in the first place).

Kimon
09-21-2015, 06:16 PM
This persecution complex doesn't suit you any better than it does Sodas. I don't know what Gonzo thinks, but I haven't accused you of supporting genocide. Just of supporting Assad.


This is what Gonzo said.

I doubt the IMF would be eager to finance a Trail of Tears (or whatever you want to call this proposed repeat of the Armenian Genocide). I could be wrong, though; the IMF isn't always as squeaky clean as I would like it to be.

I said that was a reductio ad absurdum, after which you said this...

I'm not sure it's quite a reductio ad absurdum. What levers do you imagine Erdogan will use to get rid of the Kurds? Would you leave America just for a token payment (and why in the hell would the IMF agree to fund something so...unpalatable)?

and this...

I think the IMF would prefer Erdogan start acting like a civilized human being, rather than shell out billions enabling his bullshit. What kind of horrible precedent would this set?

The Unreasoner
09-21-2015, 06:26 PM
This is what Gonzo said.



I said that was a reductio ad absurdum, after which you said this...



and this...
The Trail of Tears wasn't a genocide. Now the clues fit together.