Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
"France was not in civil war."
its a matter of how you look at it. Part of the population was involved in resistance and part in collaboration.
"How'd that work out in Iran? How's it working out in Egypt?"
They don't put pressure on Egypt. They never did. They supported the great leader remember. Everything else was show.
"why do you make so many assumptions and believe anything about it on faith?"
I was about to say the same thing. Those images are unverified. Could have been the army as well. Next to that every population has its own criminals who will profit from any situation. So if every non gov is counted as a rebel (even if they name themselves so), this is an unfair judgement of the movement as a whole.
"It's not much of an "invasion" when you liberate your allies"
why? It was occupied by the nazis so they invaded france.
"How can you "enforce" a democratic government by killing specific military targets."
By putting pressure on the new regime. Either military, diplomatic or economic.
"With the weapons coming from Russia? Syria knows Libya fell to an air war, I bet more than half of the weapons being purchased are for anti-air. (And that those are on discount so Russia can see how the systems work)"
+1
"A) I would rather vote for Obama than Ron Paul and most Republicans feel the same."
omg! I hope this was not ment serious. Ron paul can never enforce his radical foreign agenda but the will be much better for the econ. With Obama its complete darkness for centuries on both matters.
Let me refrase this one:
"Even if the idea is only shared by a minority its still there"
I ment "Even if the idea is only shared by a -significant- minority its still important". The word "even" here means I believe its shared by the majority of people.
"It appears the rebels just slaughtered civilians yesterday."
evidence?
"Nobody invaded and pushed freedoms on the West." "no Western nation was aided in its struggle for self-determination by invasion."
actually the allies -did- invade Europe in WW2 and made democracy possible. It was highly questionable who would raise to power, and most historians agree that democracy wasn't very popular in that part of the world back then.
"who you think MUST be better than Assad's regime, because you just presume they're like you or me"
Why would I presume that? I presume a democratic regime would be better and we can enforce that. Never talked about the noble people.
"We don't risk killing people for 0 gain if we don't react."
You ask me what is the difference between us killing specific military targets or the civilians getting killed at mass by the regime? The death toll ofc. The regime is at the brink. It won't stand against pressure. Soldiers will switch sides like in Egypt. They won't fight to the death. Especially the conscripts who are Suni.
"There would be significantly more risk in Syria and there would surely be casualties."
thats one point for you. Syria is more difficult to bomb.
"(3) It's not just US servicemen, but of course the loss of human life in general that I question if we aren't 100% sure that the cause is 100% just."
We are pretty sure what will happen if we don't react. Bloodshed. Whether its a brutal civil war or a slow killing of own population. Thats what we risk by doing nothing.
"Russians aren't going to abandon Assad. He's their only Arab ally in the region. Pretending it's possible that we could convince them to is just silly."
Everyone has his price, high as it may be. The tsar has his own problems to deal with.
"When America rebelled against England, or when the Confederacy rebelled against the Union, each side knew that the other was culturally similar to them. War crimes happen, but generally speaking, both sides knew they wouldn't be enslaved in the event of surrender or some other horrible fate."
Many towns got looted. Large parts of the south were destroyed. It was a socioeconomic disaster. Ok its not like the natives but still not an example of "why bother".
"These areas of the world are very different. There isn't the Enlightenment faith in human reason and democratic principles."
I beg to differ. Even if the idea is only shared by a minority its still there.
"While many appreciate democratic action when given the opportunity to participate, many are skeptical of the legitimacy of elections. There aren't laws and justice systems looking anything like ours. And while, as you say, extremist elements are not particularly popular in most nations/regions, they are the best organized."
Its a big challenge but no reason to keep the country in the dark for centuries to come. It took the west a while to become what they are now, with steps forward and backward, and there's a long process ahead still. That doesn't mean it was all worth it.
"I don't share your faith that the next regime will probably be any better. Assad is bad; but people afraid of continued war, afraid of losing their cultural identity under a freer system, and afraid of losing power to ethnic rivals under a freer system don't always make the best decisions."
Fogi is an enemy. But it already is in Assads regime. The massive killing just didn't make the news. If need be they have to split up the country after he's gone. Its a left over of the colonial age where we believed we could simply "make" a country.
"But past actions in Iran and Afghanistan were abysmal failures with far worse than no results. Recent actions in Afghanistan and Libya have unclear results, but they're not shining examples of freedom and democratic principles."
Afghanistan is totally different from Syria in that the regime had more support amongst the population. Not saying Assad does not, but his supporter power base is much much smaller then the Taliban had.
"I agree that the Syrian regime is bad. But what evidence do we have that the rebels will be better? They weren't in Afghanistan. The failure of our puppets in Iran only hurt the Iranian people and relations for decades, continuing to this day. It's very unclear whether much or even any progress will ultimately be made in Afghanistan or Libya. What evidence do we have that the current alternative is any better than Assad?"
I admit we don't know the outcome if Assad gets removed. We only have the assurance Assad's regime is the worst possible option. Given what we already knew years before this whole thing started, and the fact most crimes stay hidden in this kind of regimes, I don't want to know how many people die or died because of this regime. Innocent or not.
"People argue that the inaction of foreign nations will cause Syrian rebels to turn to extremist elements, but the fact is that extremist elements will seek to gain power from any regime change."
They always do and they always have a chance, I cannot deny that. In this cases it would be impossible to predict the future. But the population has to follow. They need a powerbase. They don't have a large one now. So I believe chances are rather small.
"Without a clearer picture of the goal and an idea of what a new regime would look like, I cannot agree that American and allied lives should be sacrificed."
Not that many died in Libya.
You are discussing the possible outcomes of a full scale allied military intervention here. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only presuming. But there are many other possibilities. Diplomatic pressure could be increased 10 fold still. Right now all they do is talking. Persuading Russia and china to let the regime fall might be enough to kill it and it is possible. Assad has the power to start a democracy any time, but he won't as he faces trial in such a regime. If his chances of survival become lower he might eventually go for it. He's not a total nut like Libyans leader was. Also he did have no way out. It might take only months for the regime to fall if done right.
Next to that there are many other possible options to influence this conflict.
If there is nothing else possible, a military intervention might be desirable i.m.o. I would risk not knowing the outcome of the regime changes over letting an organized army kill its own civilians on this scale, and ofcourse rebels killing soldiers. There is democratic sentiment amongst the rebels, although I admit nobody can say how far it reaches. We can force them to adopt democracy if only we are determined enough to do so. I would risk the cost of a small war and another bad regime over the certainty of having this bad regime for ever.
LOL, didn't know what to expect from the threads title. I expected more like a new kind of nuclear weapon.
edit:
-no insult ment to either of you.
idd. Altough ofc my opinion is something should be done.
This is all a reply to your previous post where you question the relevance of my replies to your initial point. I repeat: "The people being massacred are often worse than the people massacring." Now if you disagree with your statement now or have new point to bring up we could move on to that part.
No let it go means let it go. I also stated the reason why. Thats all. Everything else is your assumption or a point you wish to discuss.
Ofc I'm willing to debate the topic of how we should react. And you could gues my pov about that. Maybe first try to finish our original point of debate, where I don't believe "The people being massacred are often worse than the people massacring."
The main problem in this debate is that 9/10 of your replies are timewasting insults, 1/20 is you saying how it is irrelevant after which I point out again how it is. 1/20 might be serious debating. Its not hard to see how we could improve the debate here. Maybe start with replying to the previous post.
"Did anyone argue that the West or any other outside influence was responsible for the uprising from the start?"
surely not me.
"That Syria might have hesitated to blame conflict on outsiders months ago is irrelevant."
No, because the cohesion and credibility of a changing story matters when it comes to propaganda. Often they repeat a certain story in propaganda to be effective. They choose certain groups like al-quada as scapegoat instead of eg special forces from western countries and this could be the very reason. Most newsflashes I saw from the official state television still reports that way. Terrorist from al-quada or the like. Not the US or something like that.
"Response to evidence leading up to the point. Point ignored! Good job!"
Western powers wanting something and having something is a huge difference and the point of debate here.
"It is?"
Yes. As your first sentence in this thread is about that subject.
"I was arguing that this is not a clear-cut case of a democratic people's revolution fighting an oppressive government."
Its the first time you mention democratic. But I agree to a certain extend its never a black-and-white good vs bad story.
"You made it very clear in your opening post that you wanted Western intervention."
No I did not. I stated why western powers didn't.
"THAT's what this debate is about."
You want to debate about a possible intervention. That is fine for me, but your original point you brought up in your first post was about the reason for violence. I'm only mentioning that because you questioned the relevance of certain things I said. Its a clarification nothing more.
"I argued that the West and others may be instigating increased bloodshed."
You said the once masacred are often worse then the one commiting the crime. The word "often" here is important. It would mean many of them are guilty of something you consider worse then the mass murders.
"I never claimed that such would be the "reason" why Syria's Assad regime is barbaric and brutal in the first place."
I never said you claimed. I reacted to the fact that many killed civilians would be more then just ordinary protestors resorting to violence in desperation.
"Point missed entirely!"
I didn't make the above point.
"From the very start you've simply blown off any suggestion that the West or other outsiders have the capability to instigate further bloodshed."
No, I'm just saying they are not the main cause of this revolt and will never be the prime reason. I'm also doubting they have a very large part in it altough ofc many will try. At least a significant part of the population has to want it in order for this rebellion to continue.
"From post 6 you've simply made all kinds of presumptions about what would have to be done and used your expert judgement to dismiss them."
Where did I say I'm an expert? I never used ANYTHING personal to backup my statements.
"Forgive me for finding your assumptions laughable and making fun of you."
If you're having fun, good for you. I would prefer debating that's hardly a secret.
"What else am I going to do?"
debate? Its political forum after all and you sure could contribute more then insults?
"You presume it's impossible for the West or other outsiders to instigate violence."
No, but I doubt the scale is significant enough to explain the behavior of the Syrian troops or the start of this uprisings.
"You presume ever shooting anyone _in a violent riot_ would be impossible to do without getting caught, even for a professional at a range."
No, I'm just saying it would be a very costly operation.
"That was just one example. Arms can be given. Funds can be given. Information can be given. Technology can be given."
You sound like I disagree with that while there is no single evidence for that. But the initial reason for a person to risk his live is much much harder to achieve then eg providing arms. One of the most important reasons, amongst many others, is the cruelty and brutality of this oppressive regime.
"Training can be given."
Training takes time. But it proly happens.
"You presume that acts committed to instigate violence on one or more sides would necessarily have to be the primary cause of civilian slaughter to even be considered."
You said the people being massacred are often worse than the people massacring in result to me saying western powers let this happen out of diplomacy.
"I've only argued that the West and others have the means to escalate the violence, that they have motivation to do so, and that they've never let morality or anything like that hold them back in the past."
They could merely support the cause if they want to, not build it. I never said western powers were moral or would be when doing so. They partly created this regime.
"Your response: Such actions by themselves are not enough to cause civilian slaughter, so they don't count?"
Count for what?
"Because obviously it takes hundreds of snipers to kill a few people."
A few people don't make the difference.
"And there are no other ways outsiders could help more Syrians get killed."
Bring something up then.
"We can't discuss points you ignore."
I reacted to every point.
"Or relatively irrelevant details focused on instead."
I always pointed out why I thought those points are relevant.
"I'm fine agreeing to disagree--Given limited information from the area and that talking about terrorism on teh interwebs is bad mmmmkay--But I'm still going to make fun of you for completely ignoring my points and nit-picking over largely unimportant details."
Maybe they are important in another pov.
"You're responding to supportive evidence--saying "duh, we all know"--and ignoring points."
I pointed out that wasn't a disputed fact. But idd its better to simply answere by "agreed". I will do so from now on.
"The West has motivation to do so now. Undisputed."
Idd.
"The West has the means to influence the conflict now. -- You dispute this."
I dispute the scale and importance of the western powers influence on the civilians stance on their regime. But I'm not disputing western support changes things in favor of the rebels especially aiding money and arms.
"Yeah, I tend to insult people who insult everyone's intelligence."
Its pointless on an online forum and sais only something the maker of those insults.
"You can't discuss anything with trolls."
Like when 9/10 of your post consists of insults and only 1/10 is a normal reaction? That will never be me.
"making fun of them (so they cry and have a negative experience) is a productive way to reduce their presence."
If thats your goal, thats a poor strategy with often the opposite result. Not only is the person behind it unknown, and does it hardly ever change any other persons feelings except for you and him, the emotional responses from that person would probably only increase and cause a chain reaction.
My best bet is you like the idea you're undertaking personal aggressive attacks on people that hurt them to satisfy your own frustrations about people not seeing "things the way they are". I don't understand the positive result for you however. Maybe it works better on people that are emotionally involved and give a much more emotional response? It would proly work much better in a forum like general then I suppose.
@v.kemp:
"Their leaders are already publicly calling for regime change. How could you not know this and post anyway?"
Reread the sentence. I said "at first". Yes we all know.
"I explained how what you said made no sense. Your confusion and incoherence are not my problem."
Its your problem to see the irony of that joke here, not mine.
"You didn't give an explanation. You said "NUH UH YOU'RE WRONG" without an explanation."
I explained what that sentence about western powers had to do with it literally and why I thought it was important. This is a copy paste:
me: "Especially cause there are western powers who at first didn't want the regime to fall."
You: "What does Western support have to do with Syria blaming deaths on its opposition?"
me: If you blame a western democratic country publicly, you might turn public opinion of those countries against you as well as their leaders.
You: but it isn't, western powers want the regime down
me: I said at first.
You can disagree with my pov, but where in this whole discussion did I ever talked about you? The only use of the word you was when speaking in general, not about you. You're attempts to make this personal in every sentence are quit remarkable.
"I merely pointed out that many Western powers would like regime change, especially in light of the current regime's ties to Iran."
That part was undisputed to begin with.
"You're very clear about the fact that you're a child, you're not particularly bright, and you don't know anything nor care about the situation in Syria."
The first 2 are cheap insults that have nothing to do with this debate and don't matter. My personal knowledge isn't even important when making an argument, let go my personal feelings. Neither can be proven.
"References to snipers was simply one example. The simple point is that the West wants regime change, and history shows that the West is certainly not above inciting a little unrest/violence to this end. "
Not doubting that some western regimes will use any means they can. I'm just doubting how effective it is.
"Your equivocation over snipers and how likely it is that there are X number who can be Y effective is irrelevant. It's juvenile, stupid, and pointless."
No it points out it can't be the reason why the Syrian army shoots its own civilians in the first place, and this was what this debate was all about.
maybe (if you are so much in favor of it) I will post something personal too:
Now if you re-read all your threads you'll find you posted an insult almost every second line. If you reread my threads you won't. That's why this debate is going nowhere all tough it could have. Your emotions clearly get in your way.
@frosty:
This president did nothing to stop wars and increased military activity in many places. This president also voted for the Iraqi war I think?
I only give it 1 out of 10 that Romney isn't a complete failure but at least it not proven yet.
"What does Western support have to do with Syria blaming deaths on its opposition? You sound confused."
If you blame a western democratic country publicly, you might turn public opinion of those countries against you as well as their leaders.
"You're not even making any sense."
I admit my English is bad but in this case, consider the option, painfull as it might be, where you simply don't understand.
"You're just presuming that terrorism is James Bond style or impossible."
As in general? No I do not. The referral was ironic btw.
"You're ignorant of what can be done to incite violence"
That's a giant jump to conclusion. Especially to generalise this case to all cases.
"yet arrogant enough to think nothing you don't understand or know about exists."
that is your opinion.
"How many people who've been in Syria recently have you spoken to? My count's more than 0. Yours?"
This is an online ANONYMOUS forum. You can either backup with arguments or links, or explain your pov. I can be a syrian myself for all you know.
"I don't need to backup my claim that you have no idea what you're talking about."
No, as it is pointless to begin with.
"The first thing I quoted you saying in this post _didn't even make any sense_. It wasn't a response to what I said. It was just confused and clueless."
The explenation is above.
Here comes another argument:
How easely can a standard white guy move unseen, why the regime relies so heavy on people betraying each other?
Then what will the democratic regime do if some of them are captured and publicly stoned to death while they denied involvement? Restore relation with the rusians?
The full cost of a decent sniper is kept secret ofc but most estimates of journalists or researchers go to a significant price or price per kill in normal ware zones. This kind of war could only make it more expensive.
I still await your arguments or ideas how they can incite violence this way as you are claiming a lot of western agent activity. Not telling it because terrorist would use it sounds like a poor excuse to me.
"They do."
No they don't. There is no proove or hint for this whatsoever. Especially cause there are western powers who at first didn't want the regime to fall.
"Why are you talking about this if you know nothing about it?"
thats ofcourse your opinion as your pov differs from mine.
"Why do you presume such a sniper would be suicidal?"
I ment chances are small in such environement.
"Do you understand how snipers fire from concealment, at a great range, and move?"
How do you know about them then? Your brother is over there?
"Why are you talking about this if you know nothing about it?"
is it that hard to stick to the debate kemp?
"Why are you pretending to be able to judge what's costly when you know nothing about it?"
this personal presumptions of you without any backup of your own argument seems pointless.
"I do not feel comfortable discussing methods of terrorism on a public forum with strangers. Terrorism is real. You can call it by whatever name you want."
lucky us then. Nobody will read your secrets and do damage.
"It doesn't take hundreds to snipe somebody and let each side blame the other."
Then why did the regime not use this for their propaganda? Why would any western power risk a suicidal-but-highly-trained-white-sniper to get caught for bad propaganda? It seems to me like a very costly intervention that way. Also the amount of deaths is much higher in this "war".
"I didn't suggest they incite crowds with megaphones; that's your simplistic understanding of how things are instigated."
I said -simplistic as it might be- "under-cover".
"They're pretty good at this. They have a lot more options on the table that you're obviously unaware of."
feels like the James bond version of reality. What other options are you talking about except for the sniper-theory?
Same stance as AI here,
I'm not to great to admit Marx was a very smart man, but he got it wrong. Moreover, and also as Justinian has said, he -unfortunately- used his capacities to produce cheap but effective propaganda.
*/LP Starts LIB-mind-reading-device on an Obama supporter...
...oh no, could it actually be...he broke a promise!?
.../* LP shuts down the divice and destroys it
"Putin justifies his power with a kind of social contract. He portrays himself as being strong and able to deliver results. The problem is that his government is actually weak and his masculine propaganda is an obvious joke."
That counts for 9 out of ten of those kind of regimes. If you would exclude the less intelligence people from vote, this would never happen.
"Putin has been pretty reliable and peaceful."
His regime has been pretty unstable so far with sometimes hard oppression, sometimes a little more freedom. Peaceful is a pov.
"It's the US that has been doing the backstabbing and aggression."
Actually, I don't understand the soft stance of US on Russia, especially during the age the energy prices where low. The EU is held hostage by Russia's energy supply so I'm not even starting about the Eu. Which reminds me what a failure Putin is not to exploit that more. It is a prove of how weak his power base actually is.
Yeah, hundreds of them. All
Syrian massacre continues. Yet we let it go because of the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians. Feels like good old cold war logic to me. D
@justinian:
Its a war. Logically when you face an opponent so big thats not to be trusted. It would be unwise of the US not to exploit their tech supremacy.
"The world leaders who are filled with ideals are the ones we should be worried about."
Then how do you become one, seriously? They use ideals as propaganda and serve their own goal whatever that is. Don't mix things up.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Little Paul
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.