|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
posted August 31, 2013 05:37 AM |
|
|
One more time
Quote:
But Turkey has also expressed some annoyance with the US for what it sees as America's long-standing reluctance to take tough action against Syria.
from this article; bbc
I've read this sentiment many times over the years and it's came from within many countries surrounding decades of strife.
Just thinking a What If?
What the WORLD needs to do is DEMAND and ENFORCE that no country on Earth is in the power of One; you know, no more Caesars...anywhere...period.
Because Syria is just the same old broken-record-playing once again; that's been playing non-stop since I started breathing and Bill Haley was rockin' the clock.
"The Usual Suspect" = Some Strongman becomes a hitler wannabe...<then>...this sanction ...<then> that threat...<then> this meeting...<then> more debates...oh-no, world-tension!...more saber rattling...<now> this report...<next>> a news flash! It's the same ol' sick, song and dance.
What if all World-Powers united, demanded and enforced, that no matter what type of government is in place in a Country; that a body of representatives for the people of that country would have to have an active role?
Because, what we have, over and over again, is a powerful-WarLord sits on his own people like Nero; then the world wants to avoid war, so, the sanctions start and then they "starve his slaves" and cause other atrocities. C'mon, like sanctions hurt these guys sitting in the lap of luxury while atop the heads of thousands living in fear and poverty!?
Now we're at that part of the tune, that whenever the killing and torture reaches the perfect-level...that no-good evil U.S. has got to go in and do what most want done but will not do.
Bottom-line, the Power of the Earth says; we are not going to tell you "how to run your country but it will not be a Throne" or we will have a World-wide estate-sale and you will cease to exist as an independent anything.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 04:34 PM |
|
|
Markkur, sometimes I have a really hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Engrish not ma mam's languidj, that's true but your wording seems... weird.
Anyway, if you mean that the US does what any other (sensible?) nation would do if it had the guts, you are wrong on many levels. The US supports (, had supported and will support) plenty of oppressive regimes to make cries about atrocities, human rights and such shallow at best and very cynical and hypocritical at worst. Like it or not, all big players on international level are die-hard fans of Realpolitik and that has been so for centuries. That's not an opinion, that's a fact and everything else is just a media fuzz and other cheap propaganda. When a war or another large-scale conflict is about to be deliberately started, you should ask yourself what the initiators attempt to gain from it, not how miserable are the lives of the people living under some bloodthirsty wannabe's foot and how they can be saved. Those in command of the nations, including yours, never give a damn about how bad some people - even if they are millions - live their lives.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 06:39 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:40, 31 Aug 2013.
|
I mainly agree with what you say Zenofex. As I stated in the other Syria thread:
Quote:
Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assads regime: U.N. official
But it won't change a thing, like UN officials not being able to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq didn't change anything. The invasions and the bombings are never to protect innocent civilians, that's just PR.
However, if US had a dispute with, say, France, now they wouldn't be able to invade Paris just because of Reelpolitik, would they? So, it would really help, if the middle-eastern dictatorships were not so behind their time.
Btw, in some links here, the rebels say things like they are fighting for democracy and liberty etc etc which is the BS part on the other side. They are extreme Islamists and to them democracy means something similar to this:
"This is a muslim society and the majority believe in Islam so of course Sharia Law should be applied."
And a last note, although I don't agree with every conclusion in it, I think Lexxan's post in the previous page deserves a QP.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 07:14 PM |
|
|
Well, now that Obama said that he wanted to do AIR STRIKES (lol. how insipid.) instead of an armed invasion, i think he made the right decision, as far as acting NOW is concerned anyway. I still think it's too soon for the US to act, eventhough they MUST eventually.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 07:26 PM |
|
|
|
And what will that solve, eventually?
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 08:12 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 20:17, 31 Aug 2013.
|
Nothing. 
But it does offer a small opportunity for the US to stabilize the reason and keep the oil imports they sorely need somewhat secure.
Again, probably it won't solve ANYTHING, but again, in my previous post, the US cannot really afford to sit back and let things happen the way they do from an economic perspective. From a diplomatic perspective, the current civil war threatens Israel, a large ally of theirs. Possibly Turkey too? (you're more of an expert on that, as i'm sure you'll agree). From an ethical perspective... well. Assad is a scumbag who is responsible for the slaughter of many innocents, although he's not responsible for the most gruesome and reprehensible crimes. The NATO have to be consequetive in their behaviour. They did not allow Moammar al-Quadhafi to do whatever he wanted in the Libyan Civil War. The Bashir al-Assad, who is arguably way, way, WAY worse, will not be any different.
However, like most actions the US is responsible for in the Middle-East, no, it will practically not solve anything. Just the removal of al-Assad and MAYBE bring some stability to the reason. Their actions are motivated by the hope that they'll succeed. eventhough it's just a Fool's Hope.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 08:28 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 20:31, 31 Aug 2013.
|
Zenofex said:
Markkur, sometimes I have a really hard time understanding what you are trying to say. Engrish not ma mam's languidj, that's true but your wording seems... weird.
Usually, my text is intended to be different. I've always loved word-play, and I'm probably just getting out of hand.<L>
Regardless my friend, I should be more sensitive to the fact this is an International board. Honestly, because so many of you do very well with English, I forget it's your second lingua.<S>
First; since my comment about the U.S. was an inserted "gripe"...it's gone. I'm just tired of reading; the U.S. must act and then...when we do, we should not have done this or that and on and on.
Second; There is an old saying; "if I'm not part of the solution then I'm part of the problem". (modified to point at me) So, with that in mind...I did the "what if?" Again, I was thinking; what might work and prevent this danger in the future?
Here's the issue from my POV; The crisis in Syria is the same World- Threat that keeps occurring every few years. (the list is long)Because of this on-going issue and the fact that now "nukes are on the stage", I believe we need a radical-solution to prevent this from happening.
What if all World-Powers united, demanded and enforced, that no matter what type of government is in place in a Country; that a body of representatives for the people of that country will play an active role?
Something like this; the World-Powers unite on this issue and dictate to all dictators; "We are not going to tell you "how to run your country but it will not be a Throne" or we will have a World-wide estate-sale and you will cease to exist as an independent anything.
Btw, I sent Corribus QP message for Lexxan too. I thought that's how were supposed to do it?
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 08:41 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:43, 31 Aug 2013.
|
@Lexxan
Well, "threaten" is too strong a word but of course Turkey wouldn't want a hornet's nest in it's southern border. But as I stated earlier, all this portrayal of Assad as a ruthless villain is quite a new thing, in the early 2000's, he was portrayed as a reformer, a man who was trying to establish a modern Syria, not following his father's brutal politics. Somewhere along the line, something changed and now we are presented a new Saddam. So, I don't trust the media fuzz about that at all. In Turkey, the government is "now" strongly against the Assad regime while the opposition links that to two things:
1- AKP (the party in power), although not having a radical Islamic view trying to bring Sharia law or anything, also has its political roots in Islam. So, they support the Sunni's.
2- The US-AKP alliance requires that. Things like this are all over Turkish media and internet:
Now, I would be against an invasion for two reasons. The realistic reason would be, I've never seen it make things better, as you also said it yourself. Eventually, it just creates more chaos and that leads to more ethnical bloodshed. The second, ethical reason would be, and I know this is not a realistic expectation, I think such invasions, if inevitable, should always be enacted upon an agreement in the U.N. and be subject to international law. When talking in "shoulds & musts" I would never invite US to invade a country, because then other people will have their own justifications when it comes to invading other places, starting with the US neo-cons themselves, who are always so eager to jump in anyway. You can't tell the US to obey international law when it suits you and then ask for them to go invade here and there when you think it's convenient. These things should have a standard determined by an international mechanism. But since it's basically a power play, that's just wishful thinking.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 11:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, I would be against an invasion for two reasons. The realistic reason would be, I've never seen it make things better, as you also said it yourself. Eventually, it just creates more chaos and that leads to more ethnical bloodshed. The second, ethical reason would be, and I know this is not a realistic expectation, I think such invasions, if inevitable, should always be enacted upon an agreement in the U.N. and be subject to international law. When talking in "shoulds & musts" I would never invite US to invade a country, because then other people will have their own justifications when it comes to invading other places, starting with the US neo-cons themselves, who are always so eager to jump in anyway. You can't tell the US to obey international law when it suits you and then ask for them to go invade here and there when you think it's convenient. These things should have a standard determined by an international mechanism. But since it's basically a power play, that's just wishful thinking.
Artu, the UNs only purpose is do nothing and be useless in everyother thing except snowing about peace and tolerance.
In bosnia the UN failed as they literally allowed the srebrenica masacre to happen, they failed to achieve an agreement in nearly all other cases or the vote was cast with the absentia of china and russia.
The war could have been prevented...nothing happened.
You know what would be best now? How about starting with some arms sanctions? Invasions would help rempve assad, but no guaratees that that would ensure peace. Maybe syria needs to be divided across religious lines and be balkanized. Probably a better sollution than lets do nothing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 11:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:09, 01 Sep 2013.
|
Seraphim, correct me if I'm wrong but as I remember, the US was in Serbia with the approval of UN. We also sent some soldiers there but I can't exactly remember if it was done within the jurisdiction of NATO or UN right now. Anyway, I am not saying the UN functions perfectly as of now and a perfectly functioning one seems quite unrealistic as I clearly emphasized. But "shoulds and musts" are a different story.
Also, the Balkans and the Middle-East are quite different. Balkans can stabilize relatively easier, it's not a land of raw material everybody constantly fights over.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 12:27 AM |
|
|
artu said:
Serhapim, correct me if I'm wrong but as I remember, the US was in Serbia with the approval of UN.
Not in sebia but bosnia, and they only enforced a no fly zone and bombed ammunition.
Head to wikipedia and just read the introduction, you will understand that what happened there is simmilar to what is happening in syria.
Quote:
We also sent some soldiers there but I can't exactly remember if it was done within the jurisdiction of NATO or UN right now. Anyway, I am not saying the UN functions perfectly as of now and a perfectly functioning one seems quite unrealistic as I clearly emphasized. But "shoulds and musts" are a different story.
Also, the Balkans and the Middle-East are quite different. Balkans can stabilize relatively easier, it's not a land of raw material everybody constantly fights over.
The nato was under a UNmandate in bosnia, but ground soldiers were not under nato, at least not duribg the war.
Balkans is just like the middle east, jyat because its peaceful now does not mean that this place is not likely for a war. Its a matter of time when the next milosevic comes into power or the time is right to grab some lands for wealth.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 12:38 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:39, 01 Sep 2013.
|
|
The Middle-East has oil and is the route of gas pipelines. How is that similar to the Balkans? Also, Balkan countries are members of the EU now, it would be really hard for them to roll back to totalitarian regimes, unless you have some catastrophic chaos scenario?
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 03:40 AM |
|
Edited by seraphim at 03:52, 01 Sep 2013.
|
artu said:
The Middle-East has oil and is the route of gas pipelines. How is that similar to the Balkans? Also, Balkan countries are members of the EU now, it would be really hard for them to roll back to totalitarian regimes, unlesswaru have some catastrophic chaos scenario?
Yep balkns does not have any valuable resources, but just like a hornets nest, you dont need to stirr it to produce problems. The eu does not guarantee anything. And kosovo with macedonia will never attain membership.
The EU is hated in the balkans and the EU finacial crisis shows that it doea not provide any security or prosperity on the long run.
Exporting students and educated people is a bad joke and the only "good" thing to come out of the EU. Really, people are fleeing their home countries to work in Germany or other rich countries.
The democracies, as any democracy really, is just a form of goverment with lots of PR.
As egypt,russa or any other country shows, its just facades. There is nothing stopping a country today to headback to a genocidal policy and blind nationalism.
I believe that that there s nothing that holds any country from going into a war. The globalized world is just a farse, so i believe based on what i observe on what is happening on the world.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 07:58 AM |
|
|
@Lexxan:
It may be because the international theater is so relatively boring in 2013 (and really, has been relatively boring since 1989) that the significance of Syria can easily be conflated into something more than what it is, but let's not go down that route. Eastern powers do not need Assad to stay, and Western powers do not need Assad to go. It would be very strange if a direct intervention in Syria developed into an international bonfire, with embargoes and what have you. It simply wouldn't be practical for nations to react in that way over a country of - albeit not insignificant - limited importance.
Syria is not a supply dump of natural resources. True, there are oil lines running through it, but it wouldn't be irreconcilably damning if those were somehow shut down. It's not like it controls the entire stretch of land from the Caspian to the Red Sea. I don't like the perspective that the US must intervene for its own interests, as though it were somehow perfectly obvious. If that is the case, then why is its Congress showing so much hesitancy? Do you know something that they don't?
What the US is really mulling over right now is which action will net itself the most PR points. Most citizens of the Internet don't like the idea of intervention, but our opinion doesn't mean a whole lot  If the US intervenes, it will make Turkey and Saudi Arabia happy. If it doesn't intervene, then it puts itself at risk with how the civil war will end up developing (of course, many people argue that intervention in itself increases the danger to stability). Even neutrality isn't necessary a safe bet; its too big to have the luxury to be silent, and its absence would be noted by different factions. What both Obama and Congress agree on is that boots on the ground would be a bad idea. A series of airstrikes would be easier to get away with in making one side lose while still protecting the US from becoming committed for several years. Airstrikes also help keep tempers down. If they do end up occurring, there will be a wave of ire, but it will come and it will recede. Prolonged occupations aren't so generous.
Sucks to be Syrian right now.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 10:02 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:05, 01 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
If the US intervenes, it will make Turkey and Saudi Arabia happy.
Erm... how will that happen? There will be a flood of refugees (there already is, to an extent) which the US will not pay for. You see, that's the funniest stuff when you invade some country half a planet away - you don't have to worry about all the crap that your bombardments will create locally. Heck, my country is hardly in the neighbourhood by we expect a wave of refugees too.
@Markkur:
Quote:
Second; There is an old saying; "if I'm not part of the solution then I'm part of the problem". (modified to point at me) So, with that in mind...I did the "what if?" Again, I was thinking; what might work and prevent this danger in the future?
This is too two-dimensional. What if there is no solution but actually two problems and your choice is which one to support? Also, this "solution" has been tried many times over the years and it only proved that it has no long-lasting results and that it was actually supposed to solve something unannounced, i.e. not what is served to the masses as a "main issue". See Afghanistan, a recent example - is it any better than before the US invasion? Osama is gone, sure, but do you think that your government spent billions and sent thousands to die just to get rid of one man and his cuckoo friends?
Quote:
The crisis in Syria is the same World- Threat that keeps occurring every few years. (the list is long)Because of this on-going issue and the fact that now "nukes are on the stage", I believe we need a radical-solution to prevent this from happening.
Again, how would this "radical solution" help strategically? The US have made MANY strategical mistakes during the post-Soviet years (and quite some before that too) which have become evident a few years after every series of local problem -> propaganda -> bombardment/armed invasion. The thing is, your top-tier guys always have one and the same solution for such issues and fail to acknowledge that it doesn't really work. I suppose this is a combination between (too much) private interests exposure + limited political experience (the US is still a teenager in many regards and acts like one) + lots of material power to waste but this is not a recipe for a long and healthy life. When a country has a foreign debt of fantastic proportions and tons of internal issues to solve, it will not gain anything good from meddling in other countries' business - even if these other countries are led by butchers.
Quote:
What if all World-Powers united, demanded and enforced, that no matter what type of government is in place in a Country; that a body of representatives for the people of that country will play an active role?
Something like this; the World-Powers unite on this issue and dictate to all dictators; "We are not going to tell you "how to run your country but it will not be a Throne" or we will have a World-wide estate-sale and you will cease to exist as an independent anything.
That won't happen. You see, more than half of this planet does not agree with you that democracy and in particular - the pseudo-democracy of the West - is preferable to what they have locally. Could be due to ignorance, due to brainwashing, due to too much traditionalism, etc. but the world as a whole is NOT democratic. Out of the 5 members of the Security Council - which is the head of the UN - 2 have pretty undemocratic governments. Of all of its members, those with even a relatively democratic social organization are a minority. And finally - all of these countries have their own interests. There's a saying that pretty much tells everything - there are no eternal friends or enemies, only eternal interests. And like I said, the US leads its own herd of dictators - just because they're not in the news it doesn't mean that they don't do the same things as Assad.
@artu:
Quote:
However, if US had a dispute with, say, France, now they wouldn't be able to invade Paris just because of Reelpolitik, would they?
Realpolitik doesn't imply arrogant ignorance, just occasional arrogance. The US will not gain much if it invades France but it will certainly lose a lot, even everything (allies, influence, will enter a war probably against the whole Europe + Russia, moreover the French have nukes) so there is no point to do it even if the dispute is serious. Some backwater country in the Middle East is a totally different matter. It usually boils down to calculations like this.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 10:22 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:37, 01 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
Realpolitik doesn't imply arrogant ignorance, just occasional arrogance. The US will not gain much if it invades France but it will certainly lose a lot, even everything (allies, influence, will enter a war probably against the whole Europe + Russia, moreover the French have nukes) so there is no point to do it even if the dispute is serious. Some backwater country in the Middle East is a totally different matter. It usually boils down to calculations like this.
Yes, I know. What I meant was it would really help if those "backwater countries" would stop slaughtering each other because of religion and ethnicity and try to turn into something more than backwater countries.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 09:08 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
... What if there is no solution but actually two problems and your choice is which one to support? Also, this "solution" has been tried many times over the years and it only proved that it has no long-lasting results and that it was actually supposed to solve something
Focusing on Syria now, that's my point, this "world-reaction" is not working and it never really works. So, all of us need to think "out of the box" and come up with something that might prevent it in the future.
Zenofex said:
Again, how would this "radical solution" help strategically? The US...
Stop right there. I did not say the U.S. <imo>No single country can do what I am proposing. And also, I'm not high-lighting Syria per-se, because the greater threat lies in the on-going disagreements between the World Powers concerning what to do with dictator-driven events.
I am "out of the box" because I say all World-Powers should out set aside all their own stuff and unite on this one purpose, no more Hitlers and Stalins...period.
Do the current World arguments and decisions make sense to you? Not to me; it is foolish at best, for all World-Powers to always go into this threatening menace on the ass-end of dicators.
Zenofex said:
That won't happen. You see, more than half of this planet does not agree with you that democracy and in particular - the pseudo-democracy of the West - is preferable to what they have locally.
Where did I say a thing about the WEST? I said World Powers and that means all of them as they stand now. Russia, China, India the U.S. the E.U. I mean all set aside their old crap and demand that people have a voice in whatever type of government exists.
Yeah, it's damnit radical but I cannot think of another idea that has a chance of being a real-solution and offering real protection for all the people around the world. Btw, I said I was "thinking about this"; what's do you think would work better?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:10 AM |
|
|
The global powers don't want and are highly unlikely to ever want to set aside their differences in the name of some "common goal", except when it suits them all. Take the nuclear weapons proliferation agreements - their actual goal is not to stop the spread of the nuclear weapons, it is to keep the current owners of nuclear weapons the only ones so they don't have to consider more and more external factors when they make their global decisions. This is something that can be agreed upon. Mutual agreement to stop dictators whenever they rise their heads? What for? You see, dictatorships have this nice feature which comes along with the oppressive pack - they can keep their population under control even in case of nasty events and they don't have to pay too much attention to the popular opinion about the external powers, as long as their secret police, army, etc. do their jobs to suppress all opposition. That makes them useful in case some "democratic" or not-so-democratic global power wants to use their territory, resources or simply neutrality for its own purposes.
Shortly put, each of the global powers pursues its own agenda. To unite them will require some really cataclysmic event, like a worldwide natural disaster or maybe an alien invasion.  You can bet your life that they will act separately in every other occasion, except when it suits them. Ironically, the can be kept in check only from the inside, by their own population, or by a nice display of external force. And here is the tricky part - if the population is convinced that what its government does is right or just doesn't care (which is what the propaganda is for), it will never move its collective ass against some governmental decision. As I see it, the US population is pretty content with bombarding some random third world country once in every few years. It will probably become more discontent when all the expenses accumulated throughout the years hit the economy simultaneously.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:37 PM |
|
|
Don't take this wrong but I know all of that. I've just been proposing the obvious and the only solution I can see. How to make it so, I did not approach. I agree with the fear and greed always driving international decisions, it will probably take "your alien invasion". 
One important point I did forget to make; that to my dismay and anger that the U.S. has actually went the way of the Dictator. (Now a bigger obstacle to my idea)
Clinton, Bush and Obama all think that it's AOK that the sitting President can take military action whenever they blankety-blank choose; Congress is an unimportant bother. This has meant and still meansThe Country has/will make War without declaring War
This is and has been disastrous. That we Americans have stood by a watched our form of Government made nothing but an individual's choice, is inexcusable at best, catastrophic at worst.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 06:47 AM |
|
|
|
Well, there can be many "only if" wishes but they remain in the world of dreams if their practical application is not possible. Only if there was no poverty, no ignorance, no wars, no hatred among the people... But there are. That's the material you have to work with and to come up with the "how".
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
