War hawk

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#41 Post by Durga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:27 am

And no, UK and France don't make it justified
1

Incrementalist
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:06 am
Karma: 80
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#42 Post by Incrementalist » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:31 am

Durga wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:27 am
And no, UK and France don't make it justified
Perhaps not, but it does mean that it is not unilateral, and is unlikely to have Trump's domestic concerns or personal disposition as a primary motivation.

goldfinger0303
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:17 pm
Karma: 1050
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#43 Post by goldfinger0303 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:41 am

I think genocide is a heavy label that, like "Hitler", is used too liberally. I frankly don't know enough details about it to call it one way or another, but the key word in the UN definition is "intent to destroy." I'm not sure if Myanmar's intent is to displace or destroy, but if they're only (hah, "only") trying to drive them out of the country - that's technically not genocide. But I don't want to get dragged down into those details and side track this. For now, I won't label it one way or the other, but I'm leaning your way.

The issue with non-unilateral action is that it takes a lot of time. Time works for Russia-Syria in many ways. 1) They can move any weapons caches and production facilities they may have 2) They can install new weapons systems to counter any strike of ours 3) They have time to launch massive disinformation campaigns (Like they've already done....denying the chemical attack before it even happened).

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#44 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:43 am

goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:16 am
There will never be an independent, verifiable, 100% definite proof of who did it.
Right, so guilty if we want to believe you're guilty. No need for evidence whatsoever.
goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:16 am
The US President had just announced he wanted US forces to be leave Syria. Rebel groups are in retreat everywhere. You have the last enclave of rebels in Damascus surrounded, cut off, and under intense bombardment. But negotiations with the last group have stalled. Most rebels had already voluntarily negotiated an evacuation. What better way to force them into surrender than a psychological attack? Russia had promised you would come under no harm. US seems disinterested. Low chance of blowback.
That's such a bullshit analysis of the situation. The US President wants to leave, and the rebel groups are all in retreat, so Assad decides to do the one thing that's most likely to cause Trump not to leave and potentially put Assad's victory in jeopardy? What kind of twisted logic is that? And why would Assad have to force them to surrender through a chemical attack? He could just as easily force them to surrender through a conventional attack. Why would Assad believe there to be a low chance of blowback. The US responded to a chemical attack under Trump just last year with missile strikes as well.
goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:16 am
Now, compare this to the odds that US or British intelligence services could 1) Transport chemical weapons to Syria...which is illegal for both countries. I mean, we had to build plants at each of our storage facilities to dispose of them because we made transport of them illegal. 2) Do so through Syrian forces which had encircled this enclave without being detected and 3) Convinced the rebels that the best course of action was to gas themselves.
1) Who says the chemicals had to be transported to Syria? According to Russian sources, a chemical factory was found in rebel-controlled territory shortly after their surrender.
2) Western intelligence forces are able to sneak in and out of places all the time.
3) A cornered animal will do anything to fight back. It's not as if Muslims don't have the concept of jihad, where it's honorable to kill oneself if it strengthens their cause. In this case, it has certainly worked.
goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:16 am
Now add the layer on top of this that Russia is a serial liar in all international affairs. It lied about the invasion of Ukraine. It lied about Russians being killed in Syria in an attack on US forces. It lied about the elections. Its lying about the attack in Salisbury (OPCW verified the chemical signature the British found. That nerve agent is only produced in Russia). They have no credibility on the international scene.
All of those are laughable examples, but that would be an entirely tangential discussion. The US and UK intelligence services lie all the time as well, most prominently (in recent years) in regards to Iraq's WMDs.
goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:16 am
All of this leads me to believe - just by looking at method and motivation - that it is far more likely that Assad did it than not. Now add on the other claims and "facts" presented by the various media, and my feelings are only solidified.
The methods and motivations clearly point to the opposite.
Last edited by leon1122 on Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
1

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#45 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:45 am

goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:41 am
I'm not sure if Myanmar's intent is to displace or destroy, but if they're only (hah, "only") trying to drive them out of the country - that's technically not genocide.
Hitler only wanted to drive out the Jews initially as well.
1

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#46 Post by Durga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:48 am

leon1122 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:45 am
goldfinger0303 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:41 am
I'm not sure if Myanmar's intent is to displace or destroy, but if they're only (hah, "only") trying to drive them out of the country - that's technically not genocide.
Hitler only wanted to drive out the Jews initially as well.
Burning villages and shooting and raping people.. Ok goldeen you've lost it
2

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#47 Post by Octavious » Sat Apr 14, 2018 5:56 am

I'm a little confused. Is Durga advocating the invasion of Burma?

There is an established way of doing things in international diplomacy. You start by simply talking. If that fails you impose sanctions, and keep increasing these sanctions if they fail to work or of the situation deteriorates. We are currently imposing sanctions on Burma.

It is worth noting that, when you have reached the stage we were at with Syria, where the country's leader would be arrested for life the second he stepped on our soil, that the diplomatic route has been pretty much exhausted. This is deeply regrettable, but being deeply regrettable does not make it untrue.

Durga
Posts: 9486
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:01 pm
Location: Canada
Karma: 5120
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#48 Post by Durga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:03 am

No, I'm not. I'm actually going to be in Myanmar in less than a month. I'm calling Goldie out on his bs logic. And I'm fairly certain the US actually lifted sanctions in the last few years.

Weird how the middle east gets targeted when other countries do worse things

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#49 Post by Octavious » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:12 am

Is that true? The US, within relatively recent history, has launched airstrikes against the Sudan, and there was the considerably more robust action against the very white and Christian Serbia not so long ago. The Middle East is simply the highest concentration of state sponsored extremism at the moment.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#50 Post by Octavious » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:18 am

Worth mentioning Trudeau's position on all this..
Tudeau wrote:“Canada condemns in the strongest possible terms the use of chemical weapons in last week’s attack in eastern Ghouta, Syria.

“Canada supports the decision by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to take action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against its own people.

“We will continue to work with our international partners to further investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Those responsible must be brought to justice.”
No doubt he will apologise for it later, but for now it is good to hear he is very much in alignment with French, British and American thinking.

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#51 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:28 am

Octavious wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:12 am
Is that true? The US, within relatively recent history, has launched airstrikes against the Sudan, and there was the considerably more robust action against the very white and Christian Serbia not so long ago. The Middle East is simply the highest concentration of state sponsored extremism at the moment.
It's all to advance the neoliberal globalist cause. We invaded Serbia because it was to Christian and conservative. We invade the Middle East to generate mass migration.

goldfinger0303
Site Moderator
Site Moderator
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:17 pm
Karma: 1050
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#52 Post by goldfinger0303 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:18 am

Agh I can't even in this thread.

Durga - Sanctions were lifted on Myanmar after Aung San Suu Ky (spelling) won elections and transitioned the country away from junta control. A year or so after that happened, the conflict in Rakhine state started against the Rohingya. You don't want to immediately ratchet up sanctions again on a country that's taking steps towards democracy. Otherwise next thing you know the junta is back in power and they're still killing them anyways.

And I'm sorry not wanting to immediately label every conflict a genocide makes me have bs logic. You use a label too loosely and it loses its meaning. I have too much respect for what the Jews, Armenians, Tutsis and others went through than to do that. Shoot, if burning, raping and shooting was the only criteria, there's gotta be dozens of genocides ongoing throughout the world.

Leon - you may think of my analysis what you may. However, I've yet to see you offer any proof that it *wasn't* Assad. As you're the one going against common believe, the burden is on you to convince us, not the other way around.
1

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#53 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:57 am

Err, no. That's not the way that works. When you go bombing a sovereign nation, the burden of proof lies with the aggressor, not the nation being attacked. How can there be evidence when the Coalition decided to strike the day before the investigation team got there?

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#54 Post by Octavious » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:34 am

Genuine question, leon. What sort of proof would you need to see to convince you?

ksako8
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 am
Karma: 35
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#55 Post by ksako8 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:04 am

So where is the proof and justification for Americas invasion of Grenada?

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#56 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:31 am

Octavious wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:34 am
Genuine question, leon. What sort of proof would you need to see to convince you?
I'd like to see a UN chemical weapons report indicting Assad for the attack. So far, they have never once been able to prove that Assad launched a chemical attack.

leon1122
Posts: 437
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:43 pm
Karma: 256
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#57 Post by leon1122 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:32 am

ksako8 wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:04 am
So where is the proof and justification for Americas invasion of Grenada?
That was a straight up regime change invasion. There wasn't even an attempt to hide it.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#58 Post by Octavious » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:10 am

Indicating? So you'd be satisfied with the UN saying that it's a strong likelihood that it was Assad? Or you'd insist on them saying it was Assad?

Incrementalist
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:06 am
Karma: 80
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#59 Post by Incrementalist » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:12 am

The US, UK and France are striking the Assad regime to undermine Putin's investment in Syria and it's foreign policy position in general, with the nerve agent attacks in the UK as the most recent provocation from the Russian side.

But if it were explicitly framed as such, Putin would have no choice but to directly respond to it. By framing it as a humanitarian intervention with the erosion of the Russian position as a "side effect", the strikes can accomplish their goal without overly inflaming the situation.

Is this moral? Is it less moral than allowing Putin to go unchecked, or less moral than engaging Putin directly? It's not an easy call.

PRINCE WILLIAM
Posts: 913
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:17 am
Karma: 1043
Contact:

Re: War hawk

#60 Post by PRINCE WILLIAM » Sat Apr 14, 2018 10:59 am

There are two separate things when someone purges a people. Ethnic cleansing when you move out people so the country will be left with it's native or prefered nationalities. Genocide is when you kill a people with the sole purpose to wipe them out of the face of the world. In practice is difficult to tell them apart.
Hitler started an ethnic cleansing in Germany (and not only from Jews) intending to send Jews to Madagascar (belonging then to occupied France) lacking the naval means he then decided to send them to Siberia after the Russians would be defeated, this not happening he passed to extermination by starvation and then to the called final solution of gas chambers.
Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century started an ethnic cleansing but it was not interested if the people in question were exiled or massacred so the genocide of Armenians followed and later of the Greek population of Asia Minor.

Now in our days both the officials and people are more informed and more sensitive to these matters. To interfere though in a country's internal matters is not so simple especially when it has a legally elected government and country from country is a very different case in many factors from geographical position to political influence, supporters etc.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 91 guests