User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 84

  1. #31
    Administrator highlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    17,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Yes, the problem with firing missiles into Syria is that it is an act of war, and war is inherently unpredictable.
    You have a point there.

    I don't think we should be doing this.

    Please provide feedback on my Nohari and Johari Window by clicking here: Nohari/Johari

    Tri-type 639

  2. #32
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    LL's checklist of rules for international conflict:

    1. No sound military action should be based on idealist/ideological grounds. Most countries operate according to Realist principles of foreign policy. Don't expect countries to come charging out on a crusade when it doesn't suit their national interests. In fact, let's be honest. Countries usually just use ideology to justify/camouflage Realist principles.

    2. Don't start something you can't finish. If you are going to war for Realist principles, get in there, do the thing, get in, get out, and have a long-term plan afterwards. If you don't, stay put.

    3. Don't start something you can't finish because you don't have the resources. You have the grounds, you have the plans, but you either lack the morale, manpower, finances, or equipment to do it right. Don't buy what you can't pay for.

    4. Don't stir up the crap if you have no friends and can't deal with the resulting storm. Going into something blind, head-first, without thinking and then having no backup is a pretty poor basis upon which to attack a country.

    5. Don't base an interventionist strategy on past principles that are way out of date. Whining about the "Munich mistake" ain't gonna get you anywhere, especially if principles 1–5 have already kicked in.

    6. Don't attack countries for political reasons or to make a legacy.

    7. Don't go in without a plan of getting out and without contingency plans.

    8. Don't go for all-out combat when you can actually achieve more with covert ops. They don't fight with armies—why should you? Oh, wait, covert ops probably won't work either!

    9. Don't go into a country without very clear aims and objectives that are supported by your country and (several) other countries. And sure, the UN is a weak little puppy, but puppies are cute, and if the puppy says "yay" so will everyone else. Use a bit of psychology and do the thing right.

    10. If you are whining and bitching about internal problems like, hmm, giving your citizens healthcare and paying people's future pensions and all that kind of jazz, probably not the best allocation of resources to be throwing 1-3% of your budget at a war, even if it distracts people from the gross misallocation of the American budget and the debt per capita of over 150,000 dollars!!!!

    Now, someone tell me: have my criteria been met? I'm gonna go with: no.

  3. #33
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Long, but worth watching. Mann Leverette served under both Clinton and Bush so her experience with the al-shifa strikes and the WMD claims leading up to the Iraq war is noteworthy.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #34
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I'm worried we're going to end up killing civilians to punish a regime for killing civilians.
    Just in case you want a white paper to back up your concerns.

    http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/27/...in-civil-wars/

    In fact, they find that military interventions in favor of the rebel faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to increase government killings of civilians by about 40% (see Figure 2 below from p. 656).
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #35
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Obama's backed into a corner. He said, if they do X we will respond.

    He said that in the belief that his statement alone would prevent X from happening.

    It didn't. He never had any intention of getting involved, but now has to because not doing so would make him look weaker than he already looks.

    There are no American Interests involved in attacking Syria. The rebels our attack will help are every bit as bad (AQ backed) as the regime we are attacking.

    We should not be involving ourselves unilaterally. The Chem. Weapons law they broke is an international accord. While I agree that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, I see no upside to involving ourselves when no one else will (Britain just voted not to get involved).

    We don't have the money, and we are still fighting in Afghanistan. Sadam gassed his people and we sat by and watched, no one did anything. The world did not end. Yea it sucks, but America's duty is to her people first and foremost.

    Worse still is the ever present possibility that bombing them will force us to become more involved over time.

    This is the UN's job. Let them handle it if they have the stomach to. Otherwise stay out.

  6. #36
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/B...ur_hearts.aspx

    From a letter by Trappist nuns in Syria addressed to Obama:

    Will they make us breathe the toxic gases of the depots they hit, tomorrow, so as to punish us for the gases we have already breathed in?

    The people are straining their eyes and ears in front of the television: all they’re waiting for is a word from Obama!

    A word from Obama? Will the Nobel Peace Prize winner drop his sentence of war onto us? Despite all justice, all common sense, all mercy, all humility, all wisdom?

    The Pope has spoken up, patriarchs and bishops have spoken up, numberless witnesses have spoken up, analysts and people of experience have spoken up, even the opponents of the regime have spoken up…. Yet here we all are, waiting for just one word from the great Obama? And if it weren’t him, it would be someone else. It isn’t he who is “the great one,” it is the Evil One who these days is really acting up.

    The problem is that it has become too easy to pass lies off as noble gestures, to pass ruthless self-interest off as a search for justice, to pass the need to appear [strong] and to wield power off as a “moral responsibility not to look away…”

    And despite all our globalizations and sources of information, it seems nothing can be verified. It seems that there is no such thing as a minimal scrap of truth … That is, they don’t want there to be any truth; while actually a truth does exist, and anyone honest would be able to find it, if they truly sought it out together, if they weren’t prevented by those who are in the service of other interests.

    There is something wrong, and it is something very serious…because the consequences will be wrought on the lives of an entire population…it is in the blood that fills our streets, our eyes, our hearts.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #37
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Linguist View Post
    1. No sound military action should be based on idealist/ideological grounds. Most countries operate according to Realist principles of foreign policy. Don't expect countries to come charging out on a crusade when it doesn't suit their national interests. In fact, let's be honest. Countries usually just use ideology to justify/camouflage Realist principles.

    5. Don't base an interventionist strategy on past principles that are way out of date. Whining about the "Munich mistake" ain't gonna get you anywhere, especially if principles 1–5 have already kicked in.

    6. Don't attack countries for political reasons or to make a legacy.
    That's all the same point.
    2. Don't start something you can't finish. If you are going to war for Realist principles, get in there, do the thing, get in, get out, and have a long-term plan afterwards. If you don't, stay put.

    3. Don't start something you can't finish because you don't have the resources. You have the grounds, you have the plans, but you either lack the morale, manpower, finances, or equipment to do it right. Don't buy what you can't pay for.

    4. Don't stir up the crap if you have no friends and can't deal with the resulting storm. Going into something blind, head-first, without thinking and then having no backup is a pretty poor basis upon which to attack a country.

    7. Don't go in without a plan of getting out and without contingency plans.

    9. Don't go into a country without very clear aims and objectives that are supported by your country and (several) other countries. And sure, the UN is a weak little puppy, but puppies are cute, and if the puppy says "yay" so will everyone else. Use a bit of psychology and do the thing right.
    As is this.

  8. #38
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Like a bladder, filling with water, the more that enters, the more it'll explode...
    Like a week old band-aid, stuck to your leg hair, the more you wait, the more it'll hurt...
    At least now we have a chance, in the next fifty years, who knows what will be made...
    The population will be wiped out, sure...but with what's coming, we have no chance in the future...
    Right now, there is a chance.
    Only if war is inevitable.

    If war can be avoided...then it will be. The stakes are too high for that not to be the case this time. War has no benefit anymore.
    But, is it within nature that war is inevitable?

    If so, might as well pull the band-aid off.
    If not, human history, the past, has no hope.

  9. #39
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,541
    At full gallop with cold steel, we took Damascus, Syria, in 1917, the last successful cavalry charge in history. And then Australia took the surrender of the Ottoman Empire in Damascus.

    But then, Lawrence of Arabia (D.H.Lawrence) persuaded us to carry out a charade to save the face of Lawrence himself and the the face of the Arabs.

    And so we had a second surrender where the Ottoman Empire surrended to the Arabs.

    At the time what struck us was that we were liberals in an illiberal country. And by all accounts nothing has changed.

  10. #40
    Riva
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great One View Post
    I don't think that the United States can afford to fight this war.
    I don't think world powers who get involved in wars (overseas) make losses as the end result. They probably do their calculations before getting involved. Even the iraq war though sounds like a loss of capital and lives in anti-bush propoganda, it is probably profitable considering the vast natural recources the country has, which now is under the usa's 'supervision' and the huge investment opportunities in the country. If the usa left iraq after sadam was ousted and the weapons of mass destructions were destroyed then that argument couldn't be made. But usa didn't leave 'because they want to stabilize the country' and would probably never leavd atleast for another 10 years. So if the usa doesn't take over syria, it would be a unique scenario. If not invade, atleast control they would try to do through a new government which is favourable to the usa.

Similar Threads

  1. It's looking like Zimmerman is going to be Acquitted
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 472
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 07:37 PM
  2. We're going to let old people die
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-31-2009, 10:37 AM
  3. It's looking like we might be able to break up the malicious super-banks after all!
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 09:30 AM
  4. [NF] Do you ever just 'know' how things are going to pan out?
    By Lissa in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 08:23 PM
  5. Can we know only what we are prepared to know?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-01-2009, 06:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO