Sorry, Thucy, but your propaganda on Syria has been exposed.

Read the following leaked report.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

The lie you continue to tell about "peaceful" protesters being attacked by the government is totally wrong. Instead the sequence was one of armed gangsters attacking people and the government responding to restore order.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-01-2012/120353-syria_game_on-0/

"Satanic Hordes"

lol. One thing this article was right about is that the US does not give a shit about morality, citing the Saudi Arabia example. And that is a damn shame. But you do have to start somewhere - and Saudi Arabia, while ugly, is not currently massacring people. Again, (A)/(B) dichotomy.

Where are you pointing me to exactly, Putin, in the report?

I'm not seeing anything I didn't expect - government saying the opposition is terrorist thugs, opposition saying the government is gunning them down. Observers trying to find the reality of it, not doing very well. It's a bit long and I have a test so can you show me your trump card?

Blah, blah, blah "massacres". Keep selling your tall tales, Thucy, and keep ignoring the conduct of the rebels and offering no solutions for how the Syrian government should respond to terrorism.

The observers reported that *they themselves* witnessed acts of violence by rebel forces against government targets & civilians, including the bombing of civilian buses and trains . So this tall tale about innocent peaceful protesters is belied by the *Arab League*, which has been one of the groups pushing for intervention & sanctions against Syria.

"The Mission has received requests from opposition supporters in Homs and Deraa that it should stay on-site and not leave, something that may be attributable to fear of attack after the Mission’s departure. "

"The Mission determined that there is an armed entity that is not mentioned in the protocol. This development on the ground can undoubtedly be attributed to the excessive use of force by Syrian Government forces in response to protests that occurred before the deployment of the Mission demanding the fall of the regime. In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb. "

So tell me how that doesn't sound like the government started shooting first.

Yo bro I'm not ignoring the conduct of the rebels.

Again:
I'm not ignoring the conduct of the rebels.

I'll tell you one way: don't shoot at people.

"So this tall tale about innocent peaceful protesters is belied by the *Arab League*, which has been one of the groups pushing for intervention & sanctions against Syria."

Yes, I agree. You are probably right. Okay. So what? Arab League is still calling for intervention. Why, do you suppose?

Thanks for the link though makes interesting reading.

Why? Because Saudi Arabia (and Turkey) hates Iran & Syria, particularly Iran. Syria is Iran's BFF, so getting rid of Assad and replacing the government with a Saudi friendly regime would be great for them.

Look at the meeting where the Arab League "agreed" to violate its own charter and kick out Syria. Look at how the Gulf states pressured the hell out of Algeria & Iraq, who wanted to vote no. The Arab League is nothing but a Saudi puppet. There is no way Algeria votes to oust Syria considering its brave opposition to the Libyan intervention, but they were blackmailed into doing it.

"1 carrier...
Now imagine 115...
Now imagine 115 with 1000 destroyers and cruisers as back up."

Ermm, we only have 11 carriers, 22 cruisers, and 60 destroyers, and a total of 238 combat ships. And Iran doesn't have to beat us to win, they have to make our losses unacceptable. The loss of a carrier is unacceptable. Now, would Iran win? In the long run, hell no. But they could make the cost of winning prohibitive to us taking action against us. Really, read that article.

"its just a matter of getting supplies over there." That's what the A2AD weapons systems are they are developing are for. They have mobile missile batteries which can give our naval base in Bahrain a good pounding and the Straights are very, very narrow and would give our naval forces less than 2 miles of maneuvering range. I don't mean to say I can't win, but Iran is trying to deny us the capability of supplying our forces like Iraq did in 1991 and 2003. Countries won't make the mistake of letting us build up on their borders again.

But yeah, we would definitely eventually win.

"28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded.

29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns.

According to their latest reports and their briefings to the Head of the Mission on 17 January 2012 in preparation for this report, group team leaders witnessed peaceful demonstrations by both Government supporters and the opposition in several places. None of those demonstrations were disrupted, except for some minor clashes with the Mission and between loyalists and opposition. These have not resulted in fatalities since the last presentation before the Arab Ministerial Committee on the Situation in Syria at its meeting of 8 January 2012."

@Putin - I haven't read enough Mearsheimer to notice all of his contradictions, but I'll take your word. In regards to Waltz, as a defensive realist he would advocate against intervention in Iraq, it makes sense.

But in general realists count anything that isn't a great power war as a victory because everything else doesn't matter to them.

Oh I read everything Mearsheimer puts out, he's one of my favorite IR theorists, even though I agree with very little of what he says, sans the Iraq war.

Yeah, I like him too from what little I've read. I'm taking an IR theory class right now and am loving every second of it.

I can't say I am an expert or even up to date on IR, and even when I did study it in college I wasn't an authority (just check out the spelling of my handle that I made back then). I also, despite the shit I am sure to get from putin about this, do not believe that patterns can be found in history and use to guide future decisions as stipulated by many poly sci theorists.

I do believe, however, that even if it was a given that it is a duty hegemonic power should enforce a Pax ____ica, (which it is not nor do these periods of peace even exist as Putin pointed out.) it would not apply in this case. The United States is not a hegemon at the moment. Even if ther were a military Hegemon, which they arn't, It is certainly not in the nation's interest to provoke such a test of its power.

The United states role as a foremost world power should not be intervening in other nation's civil wars. Protecting the high seas, disaster relief, arbitrating disputes between nations might be in the description, but taking a side in every brushfire war? That is a sure way to destruction. The Americans benefited from British lives and treasure in the 19th century why should US lives and dollars be spent that will only assist those on the sidelines.

What is the criteria for being a hegemon? The size of the US economy is nearly three times as big as its nearest rival and its military spending is more than five times that of its nearest rival and comprises 43% of all military spending worldwide.

I agree with Putin here. Hegemon means nobody will mess with you, economically and most of all militarily, for fear of being crushed overwhelmingly. USA is undoubtably the hegemon for the entire Western Hemisphere, and a case could be made equally that it is a global hegemon as the case that it is not and we live in a multi-polar world (China and Russia being the other poles).

But one of the implications of this theory are that a hegemon will try to prevent others from seeking regional hegemony in order to preserve its own power and influence. This is what is happening with Iran, and you can see how much we are trying to stop it.

"What is the criteria for being a hegemon? The size of the US economy is nearly three times as big as its nearest rival and its military spending is more than five times that of its nearest rival and comprises 43% of all military spending worldwide. "

I think the formula for being a hegemon has changed since the times of conventional armies and wooden battleships. The mere fact that 7 nations have a nuclear deterrent in my mind ensures that the U.S. cannot truly be a hegemon. I think in this world being a hegemonic power goes beyond conventional weapons. If you define a hegemon as, "nobody will mess with you, economically and most of all militarily, for fear of being crushed overwhelmingly" then you could easily say China and Russia are "hegemons" (thereby proving the world is not a hegemony. Hell, China seems much more able to mess with us economically than we are able to mess with them?

"This is what is happening with Iran, and you can see how much we are trying to stop it."

Yes, because we allowed this to happen with our last intervention. We should role the dice again and hope it comes up lucky 7?

*The U.S. (not the world) is a hegemony that is. Of course I might be taking a too restrictive view on what a Hegemony constitutes, but in a world where full scale war against major powers is completely off the table how can you call anyone a true hegemon?

"but in a world where full scale war against major powers is completely off the table how can you call anyone a true hegemon?"

Ahh, but you never know that, do you? There have been a few times in modern history when the Great Powers thought war against the other would never occur, but it still happened, didn't it? If you are a realist, international relations is in anarchy and you can never know what another state is going to do.

And there is a difference when talking about regional and global hegemony. There are many examples of regional hegemons. Germany, Turkey, and Brazil all come to mind. That does not mean, however that they can challenge the United State's hegemony over the world.

And you are correct in the fact that nuclear weapons have altered the balance of power in IR. Nuclear weapons give a nation a form of hegemony. But I would doubt you would argue that North Korea is a hegemonic state, would you? But it does bring into question the polarity of the system. It is very possible that we live in a multipolar (mutli-powered) world where there are regional hegemons, but the fact that no state can make itself felt across the world as the U.S. has makes me believe it is a unipolar world. Now, looking into the future, this unipolar world won't last for long. China will grow into power, as will India. Russia may recover it's former power as well.

But thinking in terms of power, you must remember that there is intrinsic and non-intrinsic forms of power. Yes, there is military, population, GDP, etc. but also there is culture and ideas (democracy). The U.S. is currently the undisputed military leader, GDP leader, #1 culture exporter, has the 4th largest population (I think?) and overall is still a beacon of hope for some people abroad who wish to change their countries (not bullshitting this. I've been talking to a lot of foreign exchange students lately and it actually surprised me how much they like the US, because I've certainly been down on it lately).

No you don't ever know. But you know that your hegemon was powerless as its strongest Near East ally was invaded and had a peace dictated to it by Russia.

I don't think it could be argued that NK is a hegemonic state, but then again could you argue any nation is a hegemony in the Pacific Rim Region when NK has the bomb (and a bunch of other effective defensive bullwarks)? No, I don't believe you can. When it comes down to it, the power of any potential hegemon in the region is negated by the fact NK has the potential to inflict unacceptable damage and therefore always regains a modicum of unassailable power. Likewise on the world stage there are several nations that can and do check potential American Global and Regional Hegemony.

I will admit that there are checks to American global hegemony, but not regional. We own the Western Hemisphere. No nation there would pick a fight with us

The significance of nuclear weapons is overstated. India & Pakistan had no problem fighting a conventional war in 1999 despite their both being armed with nukes, and have come close a couple of times since. If Iran gets nuclear weapons I don't think anybody seriously thinks an Iranian-Israeli war will be out of the question all of a sudden.

NATO/US didn't militarily intervene to fight Russia in Georgia because it'd be the equivalent of the Russians fighting America for the defense of Canada, plus Saakashvili is a hothead and went to war without kissing Washington's ring first. It had nothing to do with Russia having nukes or the US being "powerless".

US control of the western hemisphere is going to be irrelevant once the South American Union gets rolling.

"US control of the western hemisphere is going to be irrelevant once the South American Union gets rolling."

I'm pretty sure our military capabilities as well as our GDP is greater than the entirety of South America combined

Sure but the point is South America will be able to move off the dollar as a reserve currency and they're setting up financial funds so they don't have to depend on western funding for any economic or financial emergencies.

South America can't really ever compete with the U.S. or NATO in terms of military power. Hell, the Brits are sending a destroyer to the Falklands that can shoot down a cricket ball traveling at Mach 3 from 300 miles away....and it claims it could down the entire Argentinian air force (though I sincerely doubt that). Still, that's one ship. Twenty of those ships (disclaimer: there aren't twenty....yet) could easily take on the whole continent's air force, not to mention bringing any of our own air fleets into play.

@Santa, if you're still following this thread, I just got a great definition of hegemony from an article by Christopher Layne I'm reading.

"What is hegemony? First, hegemony is about raw, hard power. Militarily, a
hegemon’s capabilities are such that “no other state has the wherewithal to put
up a serious ªght against it.”11 A hegemon also enjoys “economic supremacy”
in the international system and has a “preponderance of material resources.”12
Second, hegemony is about the dominant power’s ambitions. A hegemon acts
self-interestedly to safeguard its security, economic, and ideological interests.13
Third, hegemony is about polarity. Because of its overwhelming advantages in
relative military and economic power over other states in the international system,
a hegemon is the only great power in the system, which is therefore, by
deªnition, unipolar.14 Fourth, hegemony is about will. A hegemon purposefully
exercises its overwhelming power to impose order on the international
system.15 Finally, hegemony is fundamentally about structural change, because
“if one state achieves hegemony, the system ceases to be anarchic and
becomes hierarchic.”16 Yet, as Robert Gilpin notes, because “no state has ever
completely controlled an international system,” hegemony is a relative, not an
absolute, concept.17 When a great power attains hegemony, as, for example,
the United States did in Western Europe afterWorldWar II, the system is more
hierarchic—and less anarchic—than it would be in the absence of hegemonic
power.18"