On April 14 2018 23:51 Stroggoz wrote:
it is reminiscent of the insane decisions made by Kennedy and Kruschev back in the 60's which also almost escalated to a nuclear war.
Exactly, the US put missiles in the Soviet border, so Russia wanted to do the same and put missiles in Cuba and Kennedy instead of moving his fucking missiles, he told the russians cross this line and the world as we know it will end... thankfully Kruschev had the senses to back down, the only country that truly is willing to start a nuclear war has been the US, the same and only country who has actually used those weapons.
Both russia and american governments have given orders to carry out a nuclear war several times. The only reason it doesn't happen is because the actual commanding officers in that position never obey those orders. For example in that particular conflict, there was a submarine commander by the name of Vasily Arkipov who refused orders to launch a nuclear torpedo at the american navy. Just one of a few military officers who's decisions single handedly saved the human race from nuclear ahhnilation.
I've read about Vasily and I'm a bit skeptical but I dont think that matters much what I was saying is that it was the US the ones who nearly caused the nuclear war they refused to move the missles and that the Russians did the same thing in cuba
iirc the US did remove missiles stationed in europe able to hit moscow as part of the cuba crisis aftermath - but they demanded that this part was not disclosed to the public. :D
I mean not that that goes against what you guys are saying, just fleshing out. There were also influential americans who really wanted to use nuclear weapons against china in the 50s (luckily not influential enough) and the current president wonders what's the point in having them if you're not gonna use them.
lol POKER
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 17 2018 00:43. Posts 5296
^ yeah i read General McArthur wanted to drop about 30-50 (cant remember the exact number) nuclear bombs into manchuria in the 1950's,
He wrote about it in his autobiography i think.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
It all seems like a charade at this point. They're just arguing, US obv has no evidence but had to do something so it bombed a few specific spots to "hurt Assad's chemical weapons production" yet they gave them the notice, so everyone got to evacuate. I'm guessing OPCW comes out with a report confirming chlorine without being able to name the source of it.
@Santafairy, I've got a simple question, since you seem to be adequate enough to understand that interventionism cannot actually push society towards democracy, then other than removing terrorists/dictators, why do you believe in interventions? I mean even if you do believe in removing terrorist/dictators, that doesn't always lead to interventions either, and almost never leads to occupation
P.S. The USA or Israel tried out the air defense systems of the military air bases of Syria this night by launching a few missiles towards them, all of them got shot down, but this only hints at preparation towards a serious attack.
P.S2 Also meanwhile one of the biggest independent investigative journalists in Russia got suicided by the KGB. He was investigating Syria mostly, was talking to a friend on the phone and told him he thinks the police are raiding him. A few hours later his neighbors found him unconscious outside his flat's window (he lived on the 5th floor I believe), the dude died 2 days later. He was previously severely beaten while covering other topics.
P.S. this chick is heavily biased but presents a few good points
I'm generally a non-interventionist but specifically situations like cambodia or rwanda where an actual genocide is happening? It's not like I expect the intervention to have a 'good outcome', but it's hard to imagine the situation worsening. In both of those situations, imo the problem was that the intervention took too long to happen.
I mean you can argue that the US/the west was instrumental in creating both situations - pol pot would not have happened without vietnam and rwandian conflict can be traced back to colonial mistakes, so having a consistent non-interventionist policy would have been better, but once you see that a country is killing 10% of its inhabitants over a 3 month period / per year, I also feel like you're obliged to stop it if you have the power to stop it, regardless (or arguably even more so) of whether your actions created the conflict. I also think Cambodia was better off after Pol Pot was deposed than while he was in power.
Look at this naive self-enlisted to the Vietnamese war, ex-Marine, current Senator in Virginia calling the attack a false flag. Man he must be a Russian puppet. How dares he not follow the sheep into the "bomb Syria" train with no evidence whatsoever
Anyway I'd say there're two parts of the interventions problem. The governments have much more information than the common people thus it would be much easier for them to make e decision on whether or not intervention in a certain area would be beneficial to society. And I would be all for interventions if we governments consisted well educated, non-power or money thirsty people, except the whole system is built in a manner which only pushes such people to take the lead and no normal human being would ever want that. I would use the word utopia here, except what kind of utopia would require interventions to begin with.
That being said, governments could easily spread propaganda as we've seen the USA do countless times (they're just the prime example in this time in history, obviously not the only ones doing it), so that leads to the quite natural opinion of being EXTREMELY skeptical to any types of interventions unless very solid evidence is shown. Solid evidence is something hard to obtain, especially in regions already wrecked by war, which could also delay the intervention as you've said @Liquid'Drone e.g. Russia's delaying OPCW personnel in Dourma by 2 days now for "security reasons" which might as well be "let us clean our shit up first" reasons, but then again I have no knowledge in chemistry and I might be talking out of my ass.
Considering the whole development in Iraq - Al-Quida and ISIS it is extremely hard for me to believe that the USA is not leading an all-out propaganda war towards Syria and Assad. I'm pretty sure Russia actually managed to disrupt their plans quite significantly there and they're now in a stalemate position as nobody wants to risk the war escalating, so then comes the next natural step when you're the global leader - destroy the economy of Russia, which is happening. Of course, Russia managed to put itself in that situation because of Crimea.
It's like we're watching a game of chess where countires are the pawns right now, except the USA has taken over the board and Russia is trying to inflict maximum damage in terms of board control, while risking the minimum. The only thing is, the third player in the face of China is there watching too
On April 17 2018 09:36 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm generally a non-interventionist but specifically situations like cambodia or rwanda where an actual genocide is happening?
Those cases should be voted and carried out by an international community like the UN.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 18 2018 14:05. Posts 2039
Its reasonable to want to treat the gas attacks like a domestic court case, where instead of local police and courts an international body like the UN would gather evidence, pass down a verdict, and enforce a sentence (or not). In reality though that doesn't work. The criminals control the crime scene here, and are also effectively a member of the jury since Russia has a permanent security council seat and veto power. Russia already used its veto power to deny shared access to the scene of the attacks but of course it doesn't matter that much since with all the video evidence and bodies coming into hospitals (both sick and dead) its already a virtual 100% that a chemical attack occurred.
So with the UN completely inept, your best bet is an unofficial coalition of nations and that's exactly what we have here. Unlike the Iraq war you have broad international support for intervention. Googling the response from the governments of some other posters here we have Mexico condemning Assad for chemical weapon usage but not specifically commenting on the strikes, while both New Zealand and Bulgaria both condemned Assad and explicitly supported the strikes.
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Apr 18 2018 16:55. Posts 2226
On April 17 2018 07:56 Spitfiree wrote:
@Santafairy, I've got a simple question, since you seem to be adequate enough to understand that interventionism cannot actually push society towards democracy, then other than removing terrorists/dictators, why do you believe in interventions? I mean even if you do believe in removing terrorist/dictators, that doesn't always lead to interventions either, and almost never leads to occupation
I wouldn't say "cannot," I would say "does not always"
I just want to temper our presumably species-wide shared goal of moving the world forward with the practicality of not biting off more than we can chew
Also, I think it's a loaded assumption that the goal is to move towards democracy, we can have many goals like stop genocide, dismantle weapons of mass destruction, cure civil war, it's not that dictatorship is an illegitimate form of government, maybe it is but that's not the question that interventionism should be attempting to answer, I believe, I just want to make things better, for example Vietnam (communist) is who intervened in Cambodia and Cambodia is okay now
in some cases we have made things better, for example Korea, Europe, Japan, also Kosovo or Bosnia or somewhere I think, arguably Iraq or Afghanistan, in some cases we have done nothing like Cambodia and Rwanda and Syria, in some cases it's a disaster, like Vietnam
it'd be a kind of cynical inevitablism or existential statement about human impotence that we necessarily can't make things better and I'm not prepared to say that because of the progress we've made. I just want us to know what we're doing in detail and for Syria I might have supported a coherent and planned intervention in like 2012
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On April 17 2018 07:56 Spitfiree wrote:
@Santafairy, I've got a simple question, since you seem to be adequate enough to understand that interventionism cannot actually push society towards democracy, then other than removing terrorists/dictators, why do you believe in interventions? I mean even if you do believe in removing terrorist/dictators, that doesn't always lead to interventions either, and almost never leads to occupation
I wouldn't say "cannot," I would say "does not always"
I just want to temper our presumably species-wide shared goal of moving the world forward with the practicality of not biting off more than we can chew
I mean, yeah you're right, but I didnt mean it as definitely cannot happen, I was refering to the attempts of USA spreading "democracy" in the Middle East which is an obvious failure. Aghanistan is a country which was still living under tribe order before the first proxy war between Russia/USA. Iraq was under dictatorship and so is Syria. Such societies cannot be pushed to democracy through interventions as they'd need to realize the benefits of such form of government on their own, have their own revolutions naturally and achieve it on their own as then the belief for democracy would be untouchable for a long period of time. E.g. try taking democracy away from France, they would bring out the guillotines out quite quickly.
By intervening as a 3rd party regardless of who it is, the country could only spread further chaos rather than help. I could see some cases where such a push would be beneficial, but that rarely happens. E.g. USA's interventions here on the Balkans is pretty 50/50 in terms of what happened afterwards, since all of the ex Yugoslavia nations are democracies on paper, but in reality, things don't really stand that way, plus those nations were already heading towards democracy before the intervention in the first place. In terms of stopping a genocide - sure that's the way to go, but as someone pointed out, there were much bigger genocides happening in Africa in the same time, where the USA didn't lift their finger, however came to the Balkans because of geopolitical nature - e.g. one final push of Russia's influence on the Balkans at the time.
Last edit: 20/04/2018 10:50
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 20 2018 22:06. Posts 5296
On April 18 2018 13:05 NMcNasty wrote:
Its reasonable to want to treat the gas attacks like a domestic court case, where instead of local police and courts an international body like the UN would gather evidence, pass down a verdict, and enforce a sentence (or not). In reality though that doesn't work. The criminals control the crime scene here, and are also effectively a member of the jury since Russia has a permanent security council seat and veto power. Russia already used its veto power to deny shared access to the scene of the attacks but of course it doesn't matter that much since with all the video evidence and bodies coming into hospitals (both sick and dead) its already a virtual 100% that a chemical attack occurred.
So with the UN completely inept, your best bet is an unofficial coalition of nations and that's exactly what we have here. Unlike the Iraq war you have broad international support for intervention. Googling the response from the governments of some other posters here we have Mexico condemning Assad for chemical weapon usage but not specifically commenting on the strikes, while both New Zealand and Bulgaria both condemned Assad and explicitly supported the strikes.
your contempt for the law is astounding. I disagree with a lot of laws, but in this case the law is morally justified, imo.
Drawing on governments that agree with the strikes is a ridiculous form of justification, and calling the elite opinion of several countries 'international support' is a lie. To actually have international support you would need to survey the opinions of world's populations, not their governments. Jacinda Arden may agree with the strikes but what about the other 99.99% of the population? The New Zealand government has almost always agreed with america on everything typically out of fear of disrupting relations or out of greed from the rewards they get. And even if the populations agreed with this, that doesn't make it right. It's kind of like me using donald trumps opinion that global warming is a hoax as a justification to do nothing about global warming, and calling it international support once i get a few other presidents from other countries that agree.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On April 18 2018 13:05 NMcNasty wrote:
it doesn't matter that much since with all the video evidence and bodies coming into hospitals (both sick and dead) its already a virtual 100% that a chemical attack occurred.
.
Even if those videos were solid evidence, you dont have any evidence of who carried out that attack.
The is by far the biggest influence in the UN, if the veto power renders it useless it is because its in the US interest to keep the veto protocol in play, so you cant say "since the UN is useless we have to..." since its your country the one rendering it useless.
It is also absurd to bomb other countries because of the presence of weapons of mass desctructions when you have the second largest holder of nuclear weapons on the planet, maybe
How come second? I doubt anyone is more armed than the USA.
From a geopolitical point of view its not really absurd to bomb someone who has mass destruction weapons cause they can actually help someone else challenge them as global leaders. E.g. they don't want Iran to have nukes cause then Iran can tell Israel to hold their horses or shit is gonna happen, essentially having the whole reign in the region split between to nations instead of Israel dominating it and by Israel I mean the USA. Hence the propaganda that Iran will bomb everyone if they get nukes.... It's actually funny to look at reactions of people that trust the propaganda cause they believe the Middle East is populated by monkeys for some reason, making them look insanely dumb.
Obviously, from any other perspective, you'd have to either be an idiot or a psychopath to think that its reasonable to bomb people cause they have weapons. It's like everyone in Texas to start shooting each other cause they got guns, till their alliance wins.
Sounds legit, but those warheads need to be carried by a rocket that wont get blasted mid-air and we all know how Russian technology looks like compared to the USA :D
Apparently Russia/China already have hypersonic tech available, which the US apparently doesn't have nor could stop
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 23 2018 16:35. Posts 2039
On April 20 2018 21:06 Stroggoz wrote:
It's kind of like me using donald trumps opinion that global warming is a hoax as a justification to do nothing about global warming, and calling it international support once i get a few other presidents from other countries that agree.
See the problem here is that we all have the ability to immediately dismiss Trump's blabbering as lies/idiocy but for some reason we aren't doing the same with Putin/Assad. When Trump says "Global warming is a Chinese hoax" we aren't sending teams of inspectors to China and awaiting results to see if he's right.
Yes in the first case you have no evidence, in the second case you have hardcore evidence. What are you talking about. I'm not gonna bother answering to "but haven't you seen the pictures" kind of argument, cause that is a waste of time, if you believe thats any evidence whatsoever.
What's even worse is that a good amount of Western media has started calling the chemical attack a hoax and a false flag e.g. ZDF - which is a German national television, already posted US stuff. Now regardless of who's wrong and who's right, we have the following 2 scenarios, one of which is true:
A) The USA, France & UK coalition is lying yet again to start another meaningless war in the middle east
B) Russia's influence in the western media is so strong it reaches the top levels and pushes its propaganda
United States. Apr 18 2018 14:05. Posts 2039
