Syria conflict: UN suspends all aid after convoy hit

[caervek]

It is bad when Russia does it.

So what makes it good if the US does it?

Or is it just the "Duh, Murica good, USSR bad" factor?

[Keeponrage]

So what makes it good if the US does it?

Or is it just the "Duh, Murica good, USSR bad" factor?

in a case of Kellhound there can be two possible factors:

1. He is just another american fascist (like Skroe)
2. He is a butthurt descendant of Polish immigrants (and he is actually) and can't forget past grudges between our countries.

oh wait there is a third one:

3. he is both of the above

[caervek]

in a case of Kellhound there can be two possible factors:

I doubt that's it, but it does amaze me that so many Americans are still trapped in the 1980's "we're the good guys, they're that bad guys, and that's all there is to it!" mentality.

[Keeponrage]

"we're the good guys, they're that bad guys, and that's all there is to it!" mentality.

that is exactly a root of fascist mentality: we are good because we are we, and they are bad cause they are they - a void division of people into groups without any solid grounds. Of course, this stamp can be filled with various falsified reasoning, like:

1. we are good cause we are one family, and they are bad cause they are not our family (most general one, a root for Italian fascism used to subdue Italian workers to Italian capitalists)
2. we are good cause we are one Aryan race, and they are bad cause they are not Aryan race (root for German fascism, used to subdue German workers to German capitalists and to rally them to the East)
3. we are good cause we are American democrats (whatever the fuck it means), and they are bad cause they are not (modern american fascism poorly disguised as double standard democracy).

[Shalcker]

Why post a crazy story, if you self have doubts that the story is true?

Because balanced bullshit is better then one-sided bullshit? After all, so far everything quoted in this thread is at "they said" evidence level (though Russia at least provided some videos and pictures).

[Ulmita]

You tell me Ulmita, why since the start of this refugee bullshit, Turkey's proposal of no fly, secure zone is constantly opposed?

It is simple. You cant enforce a no fly zone in a foreign country. Plus Turkey wanted a no fly zone so they can arm terrorists w/t having Russians bombing them. They were also buying oil from ISIS and their trucks were getting bombed constantly. A no fly zone would be a win for the Turks.

Really I am appalled by this "new" idea of no fly, secured zone. Fucking ace. Turkey keeps proposing, we talk we listen. fuck sake

The difference between a no fly zone from Russia is that since Russia is invited from its ally Syria, it wouldn't breach any laws. Russia is legally in there man, this what noone understands.

The failure of Russia to secure Syria's borders from terrorist sponsoring nations might be Syria's end as we know it.

[Skroe]

u were voting for Obama 2 times in a row and fucked up, according to yourself. Looking forward for your next fuck up, when Hillary will turn to normal language after she is elected. You will be thrown away with your vote, bribed by this anti-Russian rhetoric, like a used condom. You'll be fine, thou, since it is not for the first time in ur life.

Wrong. Obama's first term I was generally happy with the results of (with some important exceptions), which is why I voted him in a second time.

That was the Obama Administration of the adults in the room. Of Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, David Petraeus and yes, Hillary Clinton.

It's been the second term that's been the liberal shitstorm due to Obama replacing the "Team of Rivals" with the "Circle of Sycophants". The only adult in the room is the incredibly awesome Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who was just banned yesterday by Obama's NSC staff from referring to China as a "competitor" because of the same failed foreign policy of the last 3 years, 8 months.

It is that second vote I deeply regret.

On Hillary? I will not be disappointed. We've seen her record.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._election.html

One big thing, maybe the only big thing, that could change that is a new American president. Clinton doesn’t share her old boss’ skittishness about foreign entanglements. As secretary of state, she pushed (successfully) for the air campaign that toppled Muammar al-Qaddafi’s regime in Libya and (unsuccessfully) for arming Syria’s rebels early in the conflict, a step she has argued would have prevented the situation from getting so out of hand. She has broken with the Obama administration to call for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria, a step Turkey and other governments backing the rebels have also proposed. This could all just be campaign rhetoric, of course, but for a beleaguered Syrian opposition looking for any sign of hope, Clinton may be it.

I'll get the Assertive American President I want in office, and perhaps we'll get that No-Fly Zone that I really don't care for either way (The coming conflict with China matters a hell of a lot more than any of this). But Obama's weakness departs with him.

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt that's it, but it does amaze me that so many Americans are still trapped in the 1980's "we're the good guys, they're that bad guys, and that's all there is to it!" mentality.

Who said anything about good guys and bad guys?

This is about zero-sum geopolitics. It's as simple as that. The War Criminal Vladmir Putin is certainly pursuing a foreign policy in Syria on deeply immoral, and deeply cynical grounds. But we should not stop Assad or The War Criminal Vladmir Putin simply because their policies are inhuman and morally obscene. We should do whatever we choose to do (or by consequence not do) on the basis of a coldly calculated analysis of where our interests lie. More often than not that means for us to win, Russia must lose.

We should stop Russia's ambitions in Syria, and elsewhere because a weak, cowed Russia that has little room to manuever anywhere in the world, is in our interests. It is as simple as that. We had that eight years ago. We don't have it today because Barack Obama's antics since his Syria "red line" moment have undermined the fear of what America might do in response to Russian (and other) aggression. The Iraq War was a catastrophe for US foreign policy that took years to repair. Obama's red line failure remains a catastrophe of perhaps greater magnitude for it's implications, that will take years to repair.

Obama's second term effectively ended in that moment.

But that is why we should do what we do versus Russia. Not because they are "evil" (they are not). Or because we both occupy some scale of morality (we do perfectly terrible things too). But because it is in our interest to see Russia as weak and on it's knees as humanly possible. It enhances our own power that that be the case, and we should not share power.

[caervek]

Who said anything about good guys and bad guys?

Kell did, if you read up you will see my post was part of a discussion.

This is about zero-sum geopolitics. It's as simple as that. The War Criminal Vladmir Putin is certainly pursuing a foreign policy in Syria on deeply immoral, and deeply cynical grounds. But we should not stop Assad or The War Criminal Vladmir Putin simply because their policies are inhuman and morally obscene. We should do whatever we choose to do (or by consequence not do) on the basis of a coldly calculated analysis of where our interests lie. More often than not that means for us to win, Russia must lose.

This is exactly what I was talking about, it's not 1984 anymore, Red Dawn is not at the box office, you can relax.

We should stop Russia's ambitions in Syria, and elsewhere because a weak, cowed Russia that has little room to manuever anywhere in the world, is in our interests. It is as simple as that.

Yeah you stay strong by bullying/beating up all the other countries, worked out great in the long run for Rome, Egypt, etc.

The Iraq War was a catastrophe for US foreign policy that took years to repair. Obama's red line failure remains a catastrophe of perhaps greater magnitude for it's implications, that will take years to repair.

Actually Obama's red line moment in Syria is/was a great achievement for the US, it showed the world that despite all the childish shouting and threats you were actually open to reason and working with the international community for the greater good.

If Bush was still in power you would have just been going into Syria guns blazing.

But that is why we should do what we do versus Russia. Not because they are "evil" (they are not). Or because we both occupy some scale of morality (we do perfectly terrible things too). But because it is in our interest to see Russia as weak and on it's knees as humanly possible. It enhances our own power that that be the case, and we should not share power.

That's sad, I hope most Americans feel different, for some reason I would rather you (in general) were misguided rather than deliberately villainous

[Skroe]

Kell did, if you read up you will see my post was part of a discussion.

This is exactly what I was talking about, it's not 1984 anymore, Red Dawn is not at the box office, you can relax.

Yeah you stay strong by bullying/beating up all the other countries, worked out great in the long run for Rome, Egypt, etc.

Rome which reigned for either 800 years or 1700 years, depending how you count it? Eygpt which thrived for thousands of years?

Oh noes. What poor company you place us in. Not all of us want to be Little England, caervek. The United Kingdom may have forgotten, even rejected, it's capacity for being extremely positive force in the world for Western interests as it focuses ever more on the NHS and benefits. The United States has not.

Actually Obama's red line moment in Syria is/was a great achievement for the US, it showed the world that despite all the childish shouting and threats you were actually open to reason and working with the international community for the greater good.

If Bush was still in power you would have just been going into Syria guns blazing.

That's sad, I hope most Americans feel different, for some reason I would rather you (in general) were misguided rather than deliberately villainous

They don't. Let me put it this way. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on the Syria red line. But insofar as American politics and the American political consensus are concerned, Obama's Red Line moment is a cautionary tale his next few successors at the very least, will likely keep in mind. Want to know why? Because it undermined everything Obama did, not just in foreign policy but domestic policy too. His own allies abandoned him, at that moment, because Obama revealed himself to be a man who could be crossed without consequences.

Power is part respect, part fear. Obama revealed himself to be someone simply not to fear because essentially he's bluffing. No Drama Obama... "Spockian" Obama... those aren't exactly complementary traits in retrospect. A good leader is able to be fair and level headed, but also able to act decisvely, without constraint when needed.

You probably didn't read my posts a few years back about Syria, pre-red line. I had zero interest in the US going in guns blazing into Syria. A said then, as I say now, Syria is a side show. The most important thing the US must do is prepare for the coming conflict with China. Even Russian intruge in Europe, while important, is a side show to the main event of the 21st century as the Global Order is fought for between the reigning superpower and the one who would try to replace it. The Thucydides trap is very real and we're going to live it.

But the President of the United States doesn't get to make a threat and not follow through. It is as simple as that. Obama never should have spelled out the red line. It removed his room to maneuver. But he did it and it was his responsibility to follow through.

No American President for decades to come will make the same mistake. Internationally and domestically, Obama's second term agenda was entirely trashed. But Obama has no respect for power as a concept - he thinks it beneath him. He doesn't respect its building, its use or its maintenance. That makes him a rare duck as far as American politicians are concerned (Underscoring how truly unqualified the glib and telegenic laywer really was to begin with).

[caervek]

The United Kingdom may have forgotten, even rejected, it's capacity for being extremely positive force in the world for Western interests as it focuses ever more on the NHS and benefits. The United States has not.

Or maybe we just realised (as France/Spain/etc did too) that trying to bully the rest of the world and just generally be dicks in order to try and improve/maintain your global standing isn't the way to go?

Obama's Red Line moment is a cautionary tale his next few successors at the very least, will likely keep in mind. Want to know why? Because it undermined everything Obama did, not just in foreign policy but domestic policy too. His own allies abandoned him, at that moment, because Obama revealed himself to be a man who could be crossed without consequences.

In fairness, none of it was Obama's fault. After John Kerry said on live international television that Syria could avoid becoming the next Iraq/Libya if they surrendered all their chemical weapons there was no way Obama could double back on that. Even if he threw Kerry under the bus and claimed he spoke out of turn/exceeded his authority, it would still mean there was no way to sell any attack on or/invasion of Syria without looking like a bloodthirsty warmonger.

Attacking Syria at that point would have been like Japan surrendering and then the US nuking it a third time just because they had already ordered another bomb.

The most important thing the US must do is prepare for the coming conflict with China.

There is no coming conflict with China, not unless the US starts one which it's unlikely to do, how would you even sell that to people? Lol.

the main event of the 21st century as the Global Order is fought for between the reigning superpower and the one who would try to replace it.

Oh, well I guess that may work on the less intelligent Americans as long as the news broadcast has enough flags and eagles...

But the President of the United States doesn't get to make a threat and not follow through. It is as simple as that. Obama never should have spelled out the red line. It removed his room to maneuver. But he did it and it was his responsibility to follow through.

So, if Japan had surrendered just after the Enola Gay took off, then recalling it would have been a mistake?

I'm not a fan of Obama but the fact you think he was wrong to find a better solution than war while significantly improving the USA's image in the process is comical.

[Skroe]

Or maybe we just realised (as France/Spain/etc did too) that trying to bully the rest of the world and just generally be dicks in order to try and improve/maintain your global standing isn't the way to go?

You people made the wrong choice. The way wrong one. And it isn't even close.

The United States spent tremendous time and energy at the turn of the 20th century working for a "seat at the table", as the saying went, for good reason. Even in those days... pre-intercontinental air travel, pre-Globalization, pre-United Nations... it was clear to national leaders then that a country's domestic welfare is in no small part dictated by international status. The US lobbying for a seat at the table, wasn't part of some Agenda to build an empire (the US's only attempt at that was controversial domestically and mostly a failure), but in order to defend it's interests - chiefly trade - among the mighty.

Powerful countries exist. They will continue to exist. Countries can either operate in that reality and fight for and make the most of their seat at the table, or they can and will be victimized by those who do have them. This is how the world works.

In fairness, none of it was Obama's fault. After John Kerry said on live international television that Syria could avoid becoming the next Iraq/Libya if they surrendered all their chemical weapons there was no way Obama could double back on that. Even if he threw Kerry under the bus and claimed he spoke out of turn/exceeded his authority, it would still mean there was no way to sell any attack on or/invasion of Syria without looking like a bloodthirsty warmonger. Attacking Syria at that point would have been like Japan surrendering and then the US nuking it a third time because they had ordered the bomb.

Hardly. People don't even, at this point, get the series of events that lead to the invasion of Iraq or Libya right, because they don't know or don't care. Obama doing exactly what you said would have lead to no impact to US image in the medium term. I mean take Libya for example. This was Obama's dreadful "lead from behind" moment (that being an actual quote from a White House staffer aligned with the Susan Rice faction of the Team of Rivals at the time). David Cameron and Sarkozy launched that war. The US was the muscle. Obama wanted little to do with it but didn't want Europe's dreadfully under resourced armed forces to screw it up (indeed, the British and French rapidly depelted their cruise missile stockpiles). But what happens? The US somehow in the unofficial narrative became the pointman for Libya anyway.

Basically it doesn't matter. By acting in any event the US is going to get blamed when people write their own narratives of how we got from A to B. So the US might as well act decisively and with little regard for international opinion unless it suits it.

There is no coming conflict with China, not unless the US starts one which it's unlikely to do, how would you even say thta to people? Lol.

This is not the general consensus of the US foreign service and defense establishment (just not the outgoing administration). Here is an exampke.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/4...ys-not-so-fast

Adm. Harry Harris is proposing a muscular U.S. response to China's island-building that may include launching aircraft and conducting military operations within 12 miles of these man-made islands, as part of an effort to stop what he has called the "Great Wall of Sand" before it extends within 140 miles from the Philippines' capital, sources say.

Harris and his U.S. Pacific Command have been waging a persistent campaign in public and in private over the past several months to raise the profile of China's land grab, accusing China outright in February of militarizing the South China Sea.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/makin...war-thinkable/

A recently published study of four ways that the U.S. and China may engage in war seems at first to warn against the high human and economic costs of all four kinds of engagement. The study by RAND Corporation, sponsored by the U.S. Army, does state that it “reinforce[s] the widely held view that a Sino-U.S. war would be so harmful that both states should place a very high priority on avoiding one.” And it does repeatedly warn that various prevailing conditions are pressuring both sides to rush and strike first, fearing that if it delays initiating war, they would lose much of their capacity to strike, a highly destabilizing configuration.

A reading of the study, however, is likely to leave readers with the sense that the U.S. will fare much better than China in whatever form the war takes. This observation, which runs throughout the report, is likely to embolden those in the U.S. who believe that a Sino-U.S. war is inevitable, and hence call for more preparations for such a confrontation, and – in some cases – for the U.S. to strike first.

Oh, well I guess that may work on the less intelligent Americans as long as the news broadcast has enough flags and eagles...




So, if Japan had surrendered just after the Enola Gay took off, then recalling it would have been a mistake?

I'm not a fan of Obama but the fact you think he was wrong to find a better solution than war while significantly improving the USA's image in the process is comical.

Image doesn't count for spit.

[Deleted]

Rome which reigned for either 800 years or 1700 years, depending how you count it? Eygpt which thrived for thousands of years?

Oh noes. What poor company you place us in. Not all of us want to be Little England, caervek. The United Kingdom may have forgotten, even rejected, it's capacity for being extremely positive force in the world for Western interests as it focuses ever more on the NHS and benefits. The United States has not.







They don't. Let me put it this way. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion on the Syria red line. But insofar as American politics and the American political consensus are concerned, Obama's Red Line moment is a cautionary tale his next few successors at the very least, will likely keep in mind. Want to know why? Because it undermined everything Obama did, not just in foreign policy but domestic policy too. His own allies abandoned him, at that moment, because Obama revealed himself to be a man who could be crossed without consequences.

Power is part respect, part fear. Obama revealed himself to be someone simply not to fear because essentially he's bluffing. No Drama Obama... "Spockian" Obama... those aren't exactly complementary traits in retrospect. A good leader is able to be fair and level headed, but also able to act decisvely, without constraint when needed.

You probably didn't read my posts a few years back about Syria, pre-red line. I had zero interest in the US going in guns blazing into Syria. A said then, as I say now, Syria is a side show. The most important thing the US must do is prepare for the coming conflict with China. Even Russian intruge in Europe, while important, is a side show to the main event of the 21st century as the Global Order is fought for between the reigning superpower and the one who would try to replace it. The Thucydides trap is very real and we're going to live it.

But the President of the United States doesn't get to make a threat and not follow through. It is as simple as that. Obama never should have spelled out the red line. It removed his room to maneuver. But he did it and it was his responsibility to follow through.

No American President for decades to come will make the same mistake. Internationally and domestically, Obama's second term agenda was entirely trashed. But Obama has no respect for power as a concept - he thinks it beneath him. He doesn't respect its building, its use or its maintenance. That makes him a rare duck as far as American politicians are concerned (Underscoring how truly unqualified the glib and telegenic laywer really was to begin with).

Western interests? Why do you talk about western interests? You care about your own, not even the whole of the US nevermind the western world.
You know... I am following your increased radicalisation with a bit of pleasure, but please at least don't be hypocritical. Just say how it is. You look after your own, dont include us into your delusion of grandeur.

[downnola]

The War Criminal Vladmir Putin is certainly pursuing a foreign policy in Syria on deeply immoral, and deeply cynical grounds. But we should not stop Assad or The War Criminal Vladmir Putin simply because their policies are inhuman and morally obscene. We should do whatever we choose to do (or by consequence not do) on the basis of a coldly calculated analysis of where our interests lie. More often than not that means for us to win, Russia must lose.

The moral argument to stop regimes like Assads is the only justification we can and should use for intervention. The Kissinger approach to foreign policy during the cold war has left a legacy that continues to undermine everything we do. Part of the reason the Iraq intervention was such a colossal fuck up is because we sent a student of Kissinger to manage the post-saddam reconstruction. The Iraqi people and our foreign policy are paying the price for his approach and who knows if we'll ever recover from it. The fact our hands are tied in Syria is a result of this.

The Chomsky left used to be a fringe minority, but now it has sunk so deep into the mainstream that otherwise normal leftists sound like him. We live in a world where the left would rather support literal imperialism than prevent another Darfur in Syria. This all stems from the world view that It's impossible for the US to ever be a moral agent in the world. Who can really blame them when we have idiots like Kerry as security of state.

[caervek]

The moral argument to stop regimes like Assads

What moral argument? ISIS are worse, the rebel extremists are worse, half the US allied countries in the area (Saudi, Qatar, etc) are worse.

The argument that a country should be invaded and destroyed just because FOX don't like the leader they choose is stupid.

[Independent voter]

The colonial powers would draw borders around countries to insure that these new countries were weak with lots of internal conflict. Then the colonial powers would pick the minority group in the newly created country and put them in power, give them all the government jobs. Why? Because the minority group would rely on the colonial power to protect them.

Assad's Alwite people are Shiite and a minority group in Syria. He rules over a country that is 80-90% Sunni. How did the Assad group stay in power after the colonials pulled out? Assad used terrorism against the Syrian Sunnis.

Tired of all those years of Assad using terrorism to keep them in their place, the Syrian Sunnis rose up and are trying to overthrow the Shiites.

Sunnis should be in charge of Syria. Sunnis are 80-90% of the population.

[caervek]

How did the Assad group stay in power after the colonials pulled out? Assad used terrorism against the Syrian Sunnis.

Yeah yeah, FOX have been repeating that for years, but here's the thing. Assad's political party (yes he's the leader of the political party in power, not some warlord as often painted) has 134/250 seats in the Syrian government, they were legitimately elected to power. Assad himself was elected by popular vote defeating both his opponents. These elections were observed by the international community and are considered legitimate by both Syria's allies and many of it's enemies. Yes the USA and it's buddies do claim there were issues, however:

Considering the USA was one of a handful of countries that blocked Syrian refugees in their country from voting in the elections via their Syrian embassy (most refugee voters voted for Assad/Baath party BTW not just voters in Syria) it's a little rich of them to question the legitimacy of the elections.

And just a final note, the "rebel" extremists only number ~1/3rd of what the "terrorist" (ISIS, AQ, etc) extremists do, the "terrorist" extremists number ~1/3rd of what the loyalist forces do (Total of Syrian forces/militias but not including any foreign support). This was never a "popular uprising", the western governments/media just wanted to portray it like this so they could do another Libya.

[downnola]

What moral argument? ISIS are worse, the rebel extremists are worse, half the US allied countries in the area (Saudi, Qatar, etc) are worse.

The argument that a country should be invaded and destroyed just because FOX don't like the leader they choose is stupid.

Good example of what I was talking about in the second part of my post. Though I can never quite tell if I'm talking to a far right facist from /pol/ or a "lefty" anymore when I see this kind of defense of Assad.

[Elegiac]

So what makes it good if the US does it?

Or is it just the "Duh, Murica good, USSR bad" factor?

Principally, because Russia is a mercurial and destabilising influence.

[caervek]

I can never quite tell if I'm talking to a far right facist from /pol/ or a "lefty" anymore when I see this kind of defense of Assad.

Nobody is going to claim he's some kind of saint, but Syria under him was much better than Iraq/Afghan/Libya are right now. Hell it was better than Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc are right now. And can be again.

Just because the current regime staying in power isn't the perfect result doesn't mean it isn't by far the best one.

[Kellhound]

in a case of Kellhound there can be two possible factors:

1. He is just another american fascist (like Skroe)
2. He is a butthurt descendant of Polish immigrants (and he is actually) and can't forget past grudges between our countries.

oh wait there is a third one:

3. he is both of the above

1: I am an American Statist, I am not even close to being a fascist
2: And I should forget them because? (Its not like I have met any decent Russians.)

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt that's it, but it does amaze me that so many Americans are still trapped in the 1980's "we're the good guys, they're that bad guys, and that's all there is to it!" mentality.

Whats good for my country is good, what is bad for my country is bad. That doesnt make us the good guys from a neutral point.

- - - Updated - - -

that is exactly a root of fascist mentality: we are good because we are we, and they are bad cause they are they - a void division of people into groups without any solid grounds. Of course, this stamp can be filled with various falsified reasoning, like:

1. we are good cause we are one family, and they are bad cause they are not our family (most general one, a root for Italian fascism used to subdue Italian workers to Italian capitalists)
2. we are good cause we are one Aryan race, and they are bad cause they are not Aryan race (root for German fascism, used to subdue German workers to German capitalists and to rally them to the East)
3. we are good cause we are American democrats (whatever the fuck it means), and they are bad cause they are not (modern american fascism poorly disguised as double standard democracy).

Its actually very simple, whats good for my country is good, what is bad for my country is bad. Russian interests are generally counter to American interests, thus they are bad. That I dislike Russia actually doesnt play into that reasoning.

- - - Updated - - -

Kell did, if you read up you will see my post was part of a discussion.




This is exactly what I was talking about, it's not 1984 anymore, Red Dawn is not at the box office, you can relax.




Yeah you stay strong by bullying/beating up all the other countries, worked out great in the long run for Rome, Egypt, etc.




Actually Obama's red line moment in Syria is/was a great achievement for the US, it showed the world that despite all the childish shouting and threats you were actually open to reason and working with the international community for the greater good.

If Bush was still in power you would have just been going into Syria guns blazing.




That's sad, I hope most Americans feel different, for some reason I would rather you (in general) were misguided rather than deliberately villainous

If you look, I only said good/bad, not good guys/bad guys.
Why is it wrong for Americans to want a political adversary to be weak?