Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to give President Obama the power to launch

[r00t]

ww3 inc ya'll. Saddam's WMDs must be there. But for real forgot this country even existed til 2 weeks ago, why all of a sudden are we supposed to give a FUCK

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/03/20306844-senate-committee-authorizes-limited-military-response-in-syria?lite

[Lune]

http://i.imgur.com/085GunH.jpg

[abacab-winner]

http://i.imgur.com/085GunH.jpg

John "buttateef" McCain

[Tecmos Deception]

why all of a sudden are we supposed to give a FUCK

Yep :(

[Champion_Standing]

More insane foreign policy brought to you by the Republicrats. The one party system is really starting to be a downer.

[Lune]

You're sitting in an auditorium and you watch as, down in the front row, a kid stabs the kid next to him repeatedly in the eye with a pencil.

You look to your left and your best friend Europe says "Whatever you say master"

You look to your right and Russia glares at you and says "Prove it, faggot"

There is a sign hanging in the auditorium that says "No stabbing your neighbor with a pencil". The vast majority of the auditorium agreed to put up the sign.

Meanwhile, you're supplying Israel with spitwads, and Israel is shooting them at the back of the kid's head, while the kid is stabbing his neighbor with a pencil he borrowed from Russia.

The kid who is being stabbed is actually kind of a douchebag who nobody really likes anyway.

As you look down at the front rows, you notice North Korea, Sudan, Serbia, and all the other kids watching the situation, then looking back at you, then looking up at the sign.

wat do

[Raavak]

The real powers in charge say: Dance for me! Entertain me you peons!

[this user was banned]

and yet we backed Saddam Hussein WHILE he was gassing kurds, why? because he was anti-Iran.

American foreign policy makes me want to vomit

[JayN]

Fucking zionist shit heads, making a world power grab

[Raavak]

Its funny how our usual allies aren't going in with us this time. You'd think that'd clue the empty suit in the White House in.

[ansar]

It is not always clear cut as you say. I edited your post the way I see it. :)

You're sitting in an auditorium and you look down in the front row, a kid has been stabbed in the eye with a pencil.

You look to your left and your best friend Europe says "Whatever you say master"

You look to your right and Russia glares at you and says "Prove it, faggot"

There is a sign hanging in the auditorium that says "No stabbing your neighbor with a pencil". The vast majority of the auditorium agreed to put up the sign.

Meanwhile, you're supplying Israel with spitwads, and Israel is shooting them at the back of his neighbors' head. Another kid brandishes his pencil he borrowed from Russia.

The kid who was stabbed is actually kind of a douchebag who nobody really likes anyway.

As you look down at the front rows, you notice North Korea, Sudan, Serbia, and all the other kids watching the situation, then looking back at you, then looking up at the sign.

wat do? Is the US the stage manager or not?

[r00t]

I don't agree with this analogy at all cuz the kid stabbed his own damn self in the eye

[Estolcles]

This is all I'm thiking about during the whole "Stabbing in the eye" analogy...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/AbdullahTheButcher.jpg

[Estolcles]

Oh, and as an American, I gotta say: America sucks right now. Obutthead is just making it worse. Damn fuckhead.

[Lune]

Oh, and as an American, I gotta say: America sucks right now. Obutthead is just making it worse. Damn fuckhead.

congress has nothing to do with it amirite

[r00t]

Its funny how our usual allies aren't going in with us this time. You'd think that'd clue the empty suit in the White House in.

was pretty shocked when Britain didn't run with it and Obama the warmonger was still trying.

[Estolcles]

congress has nothing to do with it amirite

They're fuckheads too. And the senate too. Can't forget those fuckheads either.

[r00t]

This poll was on Drudge yesterday

http://polldaddy.com/poll/7365970/

[Aviann]

I don't agree with this analogy at all cuz the kid stabbed his own damn self in the eye

[Ahldagor]

if we give al-queda a country then terrorists will live forever.

if we give a secular leader more time in power then we can't really hit iran.

if we give the world a nuked iran and said fuck off then nobody would do a damn thing.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_warfare

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444130304577560810962055348.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2105616 (Iraq did the same thing btw)

[Roku]

At least our allies to the north are preparing to stand by our side in ... the ... desert ...

Canadian Military Stealth Snowmobile (http://mashable.com/2013/08/27/canadian-military-snowmobile/)

[mtb tripper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIYnfP-LacA

[Kagatob]

Oh, and as an American, I gotta say: America sucks right now. Obutthead is just making it worse. Damn fuckhead.

just to make sure I understand your position. You are anti-Geneva convention?

[Lune]

just to make sure I understand your position. You are anti-Geneva convention?

Whether or not he is pro or anti war crimes has little relevance to his thoughts on aggressive military intervention.

The issue is whether these specific war crimes warrant military intervention.

If so, why us?

If us, why is it okay for us to do it outside established channels (United Nations)?

Even if we wanted to, can we even afford it?

If we can't do it in an official capacity because of Russia and China's security council vetoes, then it is Russia and China's fault.

Try to look at it less autistically and more like a rational person. And if we're talking war crimes, how about Guantanamo bay, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, drone strikes, sponsoring Israel's behavior, etc etc etc

[Stinkum]

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

“The Syrian government’s...use of chemical weapons against its own people...[is] undeniable." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Aug. 27, 2013". (thanks Stephen)

[Lune]

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002

“The Syrian government’s...use of chemical weapons against its own people...[is] undeniable." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Aug. 27, 2013". (thanks Stephen)

As much as Nancy Pelosi is indeed a dumb cunt, I think in this case they actually found, or claim to have found, residues from chemical weaponry at the site. Even if it is fabricated, the evidence is much more compelling (existent) than preceded Iraq.

[Estolcles]

just to make sure I understand your position. You are anti-Geneva convention?

I'm anti-Obama and everything the idiot stands for... because he certainly doesn't stand for America or it's troops. I'd call him a ******, but that'd be an insult to all the ******s in the land.

Hopefully he doesn't get us into WW3 before his term is up (but it's starting to look that way).

[r00t]

well there was no question saddam DID have chemical weapons, we sold him that shit after ronald reagans election

[gaylordfockerp99]

This is good old Ronald's doing, our country has been fucked since the late 80's. Why couldn't Jimmy Carter run for life? Only president in recent times to never have gotten involved in a forgein conflict. Thanks Jim. Haters hate on and Root keep getting her fat, she will never leave.

[waldo]

Interesting that all this Syria shit starts happening as the American people are starting to question their government more. With Snowden and Wiki leaks out, the government has to do something to make us forget about our own nation.

[Estolcles]

Interesting that all this Syria shit starts happening as the American people are starting to question their government more. With Snowden and Wiki leaks out, the government has to do something to make us forget about our own nation.

Obitchcakes is playing "Wag The Dog".

[Orruar]

As much as Nancy Pelosi is indeed a dumb cunt, I think in this case they actually found, or claim to have found, residues from chemical weaponry at the site. Even if it is fabricated, the evidence is much more compelling (existent) than preceded Iraq.

And they have shown no evidence displaying who released the chemical weapons. The strongman in charge who is winning the civil war? Or the Al-Qaeda-linked rebels that are hoping to draw the US into helping them? The former seems less likely, though I'd only throw the odds at maybe 2:1 in favor of the rebels. The claim they'll show proof it was Assad's government, but the longer we go without such proof, the more it seems they're hoping that aspect goes away.

Now, let's say we follow the president's plan of launching limited strikes on Assad in order to weaken his regime. Will that work? Unlikely. It will only solidify support as about the only thing Muslims hate more than other Muslims is foreigners interfering with their Muslim v Muslim bloodbaths. If we decide we need to stop the violence, we better be damn well ready to put a quarter million troops or more into the country. Half-assing our way through wars hasn't worked for the past 50 years and it isn't going to work now.

Finally, I saw Kerry saying this isn't a war. He defined it using some bullshit language such as "limited strike intended to reduce the enemy's ability to attack". But we're considering dropping bombs and launching missiles. That's war. If the government of Canada suddenly started launching cruise missiles (probably powered by maple syrup) at Washington DC, you can be pretty damn sure we'd consider it an act of war.

[Orruar]

Another point I forgot to make: Kerry was saying that if we don't launch an attack on Assad, it will mean many other dictators will see it as a green light to use chemical weapons on their people. Well, what is going to happen if we do create this clear rule that use of chemical weapons = US bombing a country in an attempt to destroy the regime? Anyone who wants to overthrow their government will now have infinitely more power than they did before. They don't need to worry about fighting their own war. All they need to do is figure out a way to gas a few thousand of their fellow countrymen and the US will come do it for them. It's entirely conceivable that launching an attack will lead to many more chemical weapons attacks in the future.

[JayN]

Zionist are afraid to loose their stranglehold.

Great lengths are being taken to remove the Dollar as the only Petrol acceptable currency (petrol dollar).

Once this happens we will no longer be in control of anything.

Knowing then our dollar is now worthless China may/will doing something drastic to recoup its losses on American debts.

Knowing our dollar is now worthless

[Kagatob]

Whether or not he is pro or anti war crimes has little relevance to his thoughts on aggressive military intervention.

The issue is whether these specific war crimes warrant military intervention.

If so, why us?

If us, why is it okay for us to do it outside established channels (United Nations)?

Even if we wanted to, can we even afford it?

If we can't do it in an official capacity because of Russia and China's security council vetoes, then it is Russia and China's fault.

Try to look at it less autistically and more like a rational person. And if we're talking war crimes, how about Guantanamo bay, waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, drone strikes, sponsoring Israel's behavior, etc etc etc

You sound a lot like the western nations in the 1930s.

[apio]

the real problem i have with this is how it is being communicated. If they would be killing their people with weapons the US sold to them (as happening in many countries worldwide, at this very moment), nobody would have a problem with it.

THAT is the real problem

[Tibador]

This is good old Ronald's doing, our country has been fucked since the late 80's. Why couldn't Jimmy Carter run for life? Only president in recent times to never have gotten involved in a forgein conflict. Thanks Jim. Haters hate on and Root keep getting her fat, she will never leave.

Haha really do you even know world politics and why were even fucking talking about Syria today your best friend Jimmy Carter is the cause of all this by fucking over the Shah of Iran back in the 70-80's it gave rise to the leadership that is currently running things and is the only reason along with Russia that Syria is not wiped out right now.

Worst fucking President in a long long ass time and you claim he's the best man our Education system is going to shit.

[Sirken]

i thought the title said "power to lunch"

very disappointed

[Misto]

How do you explain to your daddy/uncle that you let a ****** be better than you in every way? Obama's more successful, intelligent, and wealthy than your entire sister fucking, inbred family will ever be. Keep Forumquesting, hero.

Mad and black. LAPD on standby.

[r00t]

How do you explain to your daddy/uncle that you let a ****** be better than you in every way? Obama's more successful, intelligent, and wealthy than your entire sister fucking, inbred family will ever be. Keep Forumquesting, hero.

haha holy shit you srs? he's not better than me in any way.

Obama never built or earned anything in his life. Every election he's ever won was handed to him. His legitimate title should be the community organizer n chief. Occupy protesting community organizers have more intelligent thoughts than him, he can't even form a sentence without having to pause 30 times for his teleprompter.

[r00t]

What I meant by never built anything was a Romney reference. Though they're both stooges for the Illuminati banker lizards that run everything, at least Romney built up hundred millions of dollars worth of companies. Obama couldn't run a hot dog stand let alone a country (which is why the past half decade has been a total disaster by every single metric*)



*literally everything is shittier now

[r00t]

Im just kidding yall I love His Presidency

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o77Tpmp1NG8/UG4nps5DsYI/AAAAAAAASxg/wfMQmG1qgOE/s320/1-The-King-Barack-Obama-And-His-Jester-78130.jpg

[r00t]

if obama gassed us syria wouldnt do SHIT for us

[Nirgon]

"power to lunch"


Baja Fresh

Not to go

Chips are great

Many different kinds of salas to make a mess everywhere (kidding but when I see that some lecherous shitbag has befouled a Baja Fresh table with them, I get the classic rage)

[r00t]

i thought the title said "power to lunch"

very disappointed

https://sphotos-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1238208_10200293765929551_976528410_n.jpg

[Ahldagor]

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons

[Vaildez]

haha holy shit you srs? he's not better than me in any way.

Obama never built or earned anything in his life. Every election he's ever won was handed to him. His legitimate title should be the community organizer n chief. Occupy protesting community organizers have more intelligent thoughts than him, he can't even form a sentence without having to pause 30 times for his teleprompter.

[Raavak]

Obama gave a good speech once at that one convention thing.

[Vaildez]

New Nickname = OhBombYa

[Kagatob]

Still would take mr. inaction any day over the guy who talks about job creation but decides to outsource every chance he can and even badmouthed the country he outsourced to at every turn, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. He also did it all while wearing magical underpants.

[Kagatob]

But I digress. Geneva convention > all you dirtbag Nazi sympathizers.

[Ahldagor]

But I digress. Geneva convention > all you dirtbag Nazi sympathizers.

geneva is in effect if the participating countries participate in its governing rules.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/37b0d419097f5e006aa924b1d4cdc5b7/tumblr_mor02ziHmw1rd3evlo1_500.jpg

[Vaildez]

Still would take mr. inaction any day over the guy who talks about job creation but decides to outsource every chance he can and even badmouthed the country he outsourced to at every turn, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. He also did it all while wearing magical underpants.

I am no Mitt fan but he was clearly more qualified to run the country... Lets see here guy with keen business acumen or guy who has had everything handed to him?

[Orruar]

But I digress. Geneva convention > all you dirtbag Nazi sympathizers.

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before pretending like they apply here.

[Vaildez]

Speaking of bombing... I can't wait to see the next round of approval ratings.

[Lune]

The United States government is not a business and shouldn't be run like one.

All we would have seen with Romney is increased military spending and a little more Reaganomics.

[Vaildez]

The United States government is not a business and shouldn't be run like one.

All we would have seen with Romney is increased military spending and a little more Reaganomics.

You're right...Instead its run like a Teenager with his parents credit card.

[Orruar]

I am no Mitt fan but he was clearly more qualified to run the country... Lets see here guy with keen business acumen or guy who has had everything handed to him?

Any person who reaches adulthood and continues to believe the things Mormons believe makes that person rather unfit for any kind of position of power. I mean, is Jesus really going to come back to Earth and decide to live in Jackson county, Missouri?

With that said, neither of those fucks were qualified for shit. The two major parties put up two complete buffoons, as usual. Most people realize this. Their only reason for voting for one of the two dunces is out of fear that the other would ruin the country. If you want to talk about terrorism, our political process is one long series of terrorist acts.

[Orruar]

Actually, I'm glad Obama is the one in the white house currently. If it was a republican, then the dems would get to continue acting like they hate war when most of them are quite content with bombs maiming civilians as long as it's done by their guy.

[Ahldagor]

You're right...Instead its run like a Teenager with his parents credit card.

http://conservatard.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/bushsalute.jpg

[Vaildez]

Any person who reaches adulthood and continues to believe the things Mormons believe makes that person rather unfit for any kind of position of power. I mean, is Jesus really going to come back to Earth and decide to live in Jackson county, Missouri?

With that said, neither of those fucks were qualified for shit. The two major parties put up two complete buffoons, as usual. Most people realize this. Their only reason for voting for one of the two dunces is out of fear that the other would ruin the country. If you want to talk about terrorism, our political process is one long series of terrorist acts.

You could really say that for any religion since they are all a bunch of made up shit.

This is why I elected to not vote.

[Ahldagor]

http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/German%20Propaganda.html

good read and consider it with advertising...namely political advertising.

[Vaildez]

That was, no doubt, the stupidest paragraph I've ever read on a forum with metric shit-tons of stupid. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you, inbreed? All you know is you was taught to hate ******s, and by God, you're gonna keep hatin' all forms of ******dom to you die, praise ******-hatin' Baby Jeebus! Get back to us after you're done fucking your sister, and downed your 2nd 12 pack of PBR. This is hilarious.

Wow...Did you even read what you typed before you hit submit?

[Vaildez]

He was also a professor at Harvard. You're some faggot on an elf simulator troll forum.

Those who can't do...Teach.

[Lune]

Stephen Hawking clearly can't do

[Ahldagor]

Those who care...Teach.

ftfy

either way it doesn't change the fact that he's in office

[Vaildez]

He's doing now. He's The President. The Head ****** In Charge.

Have you worked up to night manager at Taco Bell yet, or just hanging in your mom's ass-smelling basement, like Kagatob and Tiggles?

You seem to be the one with the problem...Especially with your love for the N Word.

I have never in my life worked in Fast Food and have worked a total of 6 months in a Non-Professional job my entire life when I was 15...lol

[Orruar]

You could really say that for any religion since they are all a bunch of made up shit.

This is why I elected to not vote.

Yeah, but some religions are more crazy than others. Mormonism is objectively batshit crazy. I put it about at the same level as Scientology.

[r00t]

That was, no doubt, the stupidest paragraph I've ever read on a forum with metric shit-tons of stupid. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you, inbreed? All you know is you was taught to hate ******s, and by God, you're gonna keep hatin' all forms of ******dom to you die, praise ******-hatin' Baby Jeebus! Get back to us after you're done fucking your sister, and downed your 2nd 12 pack of PBR. This is hilarious.

way to attack my points with substance wait what the fuk you talkin bout I grew up in hawaii and socal not bumfuck alabama

[r00t]

Correction, he graduated from Harvard, where he was President of The Harvard Law Review. He was a professor at University of Chicago Law School.

all speculation since he won't release his college records. also he was groomed by the CIA from birth, literal definition of a manchurian candidate... hence it was all handed to him.

[r00t]

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/

[Lune]

Alex Jones, fucking lol

[Lune]

Look ***** i got proof 2

http://i.imgur.com/SOMOaXi.png

http://i.imgur.com/1oTKx48.jpg

[JayN]

http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-barack-obama-conclusively-outed-as-cia-creation/

I too have reports of other leaders and their families working with the CIA!

http://randomspeak.blogspot.com/2004/11/is-george-bush-giant-space-lizard-just.html

can u believe it!:eek:

[r00t]

Alex Jones, fucking lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Hk1-BpXO8

patsy, method, location, 2 months in advanced... we still laughing or listening?

[r00t]

It's irrefutable proof he knows what he's talking about, but CIA slides are strong in terminating people's processing of believing what's in front of them

[Estolcles]

Yeah, but some religions are more crazy than others. Mormonism is objectively batshit crazy. I put it about at the same level as Scientology.

Now now now... At least the Mormons are nice, not as inclined to go legal on your ass, and are decent people compared to scumbag worthless Scientologist dickheads.

[Stinkum]

Those who can't do...Teach.

Yeah man, you're so cool for putting down teachers.

My friend is one of the smartest dudes I know and chose to be a public school teacher because he has a passion for education. He works incredibly hard all day for shit pay and then stays after work 'till literally 9:00 p.m. because he coaches the soccer team.

Teaching is probably one of the most noble jobs out there. You, on the other hand, are a gaping asshole.

[moklianne]

It could be true. I read about an agent in the government's time traveling project a few years back and he said that Obama was going to be the next president. Then you have the two that claim that they trained him to go to Mars when he was younger. All part of the same project since space and time are malleable factors using this technology. So, he could have been groomed, even raised by the CIA for this purpose.

Summarize the article for me, since I have a job and can't read 20 pages right now.

[r00t]

I wanna be a teacher cuz I know wtfdo and MOST my professors do not

[Nirgon]

If you're not as smart as these people, how come you'd have no chance in a run for office

[Raavak]

Video proving George H. W. Bush is a reptilian. Watch it before it vanishes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eaaubr3nnHI

[JayN]

And I ask you; When the Reptiles come for you,
will there be anyone left to speak out or ask questions?

[JayN]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_e7Rx8vGhA

compelling evidence

[r00t]

the babylonian brotherhood reptilian thing comes before david icke. It's what the elite believe they are (a hybrid half-interdimensional half-human bloodline). It's why they've inbred for thousands of years to keep the blue blood in the family. So even though we know theyre just retarded, they truly believe in that. And a lot of other weird shit, where the world elite dress in satanic robes and worship a big stone owl every year

http://www.lovethetruth.com/jis_images/cremation_of_care.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Harvey_Hancock_at_Bohemian_Grove_1967.jpeg/300px-Harvey_Hancock_at_Bohemian_Grove_1967.jpeg

hoot hoot bitch

[Orruar]

If you're not as smart as these people, how come you'd have no chance in a run for office

I believe that sentence has one too many negatives.

[Vaildez]

Yeah man, you're so cool for putting down teachers.

My friend is one of the smartest dudes I know and chose to be a public school teacher because he has a passion for education. He works incredibly hard all day for shit pay and then stays after work 'till literally 9:00 p.m. because he coaches the soccer team.

Teaching is probably one of the most noble jobs out there. You, on the other hand, are a gaping asshole.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/46d8829f4fe33bd5718a77e8245947f7/tumblr_mi2h99x9QR1qcy4dgo1_500.gif

Cool Story... You must have a lot of dumb friends.

[Vaildez]

Are you surprised? He's obviously a dumbass, white trash hick who is too stupid to think for himself, so he just parrots talking points from The Corporate Cocksucking Machine. He probably calls Sean Hannity to kiss his ass.

As opposed to the Liberal race baiting shitshow of MSNBC with the least fact based reporting?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

[Daldolma]

Are you surprised? He's obviously a dumbass, white trash hick who is too stupid to think for himself, so he just parrots talking points from The Corporate Cocksucking Machine. He probably calls Sean Hannity to kiss his ass.

you seem absolutely furious in every post you make

[Vaildez]

you seem absolutely furious in every post you make

This is who i picture when I read his posts...

http://www.sternrate.com/files/GarytheRetard.jpg

[stonez138]

haha holy shit you srs? he's not better than me in any way.

Obama never built or earned anything in his life. Every election he's ever won was handed to him. His legitimate title should be the community organizer n chief. Occupy protesting community organizers have more intelligent thoughts than him, he can't even form a sentence without having to pause 30 times for his teleprompter.

Your ignorance is truly astounding!

[Obsidus]

The amount of stupid in this thread is just too damn high. Get back to flaming one another over EQ related shit please. If I wanted to watch a bunch of suck-ass armchair politicians shit sling about their opinions, I'd go to any one of the hundreds upon hundreds of forums and websites for it.

Someone please say TMO is full of fags, or Shanna is fat, or Gaffin is an RMTing wigger, etc, get shit back on track up in here.

[Lune]

shanna is fat this is true

[Kagatob]

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before pretending like they apply here.

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before you try pretending they don't apply here.

[Lune]

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before you try pretending they don't apply here.

This is why they give aspies extra time on tests, because you just don't comprehend shit quite as well huh?

[Kagatob]

This is why they give aspies extra time on tests.

Actually they don't. Aspies test better than the rest of the population on average.

Why do you keep talking about things you have no clue about?

[Vaildez]

This is why they give aspies extra time on tests, because you just don't comprehend shit quite as well huh?

Ummm pretty sure it's the opposite of that... You know what Asbergers is right?

[Lune]

Yes I do. It was academic policy at my university. I had a roommate with asperger's and they gave him extra time on all the tests in classes we had together. Has to do with aspies processing information differently or something.

I'd look into it, chances are it was part of your academic policy but you didn't avail yourself. Then again, Kagatob is like a CNA or something and probably went to University of Phoenix for that.

Was sad too, people treated him like they treat Kagatob because he just couldn't help being a douchebag.

[Kagatob]

Yes I do. It was academic policy at my university. I had a roommate with asperger's and they gave him extra time on all the tests in classes we had together. Has to do with aspies processing information differently or something.

I'd look into it, chances are it was part of your academic policy but you didn't avail yourself. Then again, Kagatob is like a CNA or something and probably went to University of Phoenix for that.

Was sad too, people treated him like they treat Kagatob because he just couldn't help being a douchebag.

lolmad.

[Orruar]

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before you try pretending they don't apply here.

Since you're an expert, why don't you list the convention(s) that apply here.

[Ahldagor]

You should probably look up the Geneva conventions before you try pretending they don't apply here.

http://armystrongstories.com/blog-assets/john-cook/images/18%20JUL%20General%20Sherman%20web.jpg

[Vaildez]

Since you're an expert, why don't you list the convention(s) that apply here.

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/375

[Orruar]

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/375

Only applies to international conflicts. Hell, that one has to do with POW treatment, which has barely been discussed at all in the media. Certainly POW treatment is not the impetus for this latest push by the government to go to war.

Care to try again?

[Ajkuhuun]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y181/Arshissblade/888_zps29758b8d.jpg

[Orruar]

It's so strange that a political discussion would start in a thread with the title that this one has.

[aowen]

'International norms/laws' have a long history of conflicting with each other. Sovereignty vs. human rights. When is it okay to step in? Are rights universal or do they emanate from one's community (nation, state, globe, or otherwise). All things to think about.

Next, is consistency important? How many people have died in other countries by the hands of despots? What have we done about that? Does it matter if they are killed by chemical weapons or by regular bombs, guns, artillery, etc.

Is international law constituted and recognized by all, is it a post-colonial imperial force to coerce the 'periphery' to conform to standards set by the 'powerful', or does it have other dynamics. Is international law even enforceable? Do the Geneva Conventions matter when the UN is impotent from underfunding and corruption?

I guess what I'm getting at is when considering foreign policy, what underlying norms/values/morals, historical selections, and theories are going to inform your viewpoint.

In the case of Syria, I'd have to say that due to any lack of commitment to real change, bombing a stone-age country into the stone-age will be an echo of the same misguided tautologies that have plagued our past policies in the Middle East. It will further disrupt and anger the region, feed a force of rebels liable to commit further atrocities equal in stature.

Put more neutrally, the biggest problem with this notion, at this stage at least, is the failure to consider a) the consequences of support for rebel forces, b) whether it's actually reasonable to expect a short operation, c) whether constituents have the appetite for more war in this region, d) any kind of exit plan once the job, whatever the job may be. I think the lack of intervention so far can be pinned down to the difficulties in adequately assessing these considerations. This is such a volatile situation that it's very difficult to be sure we won't just make the situation worse in the long-term, or at least end up being culpable in the total collapse of the state.

[Estolcles]

We need to just leave the middle east to fuck themselves into oblivion.

Syria's shit. Let them extinct themselves.

Then again, I really have no love for any of the middle eastern countries. I'm a supporter of the "Glass Project".

[Orruar]

Can anyone explain what makes chemical weapons so special? Is there really a big difference between being killed by sarin gas and being killed by little pieces of metal tearing through your body?

I suspect our aversion to chemical weapons is due to similar reasons for our aversion to terrorism. It's a way for a relatively poor person/people to exert much greater power than they otherwise could. It would take many millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles to do the same damage done by 19 men on 9/11 for a fraction of that. 19 box cutters + 19 plane tickets = ~6k. We want other countries to follow certain rules of war because those rules benefit us. You may be saying that terrorism is qualitatively different because it targets civilians. If you are thinking this, please consider the massive amounts of collateral damage that our bombs cause. We have avenged 9/11 many times over in terms of civilian body count.

Put another way, I wonder if the following is true: The British hated the colonial soldiers that used guerrilla warfare in the same way we hate those that use chemical weapons, and for the same reasons.

[Stinkum]

http://capecodhistory.us/quotes/pictures/scooter1.jpg

[Estolcles]

Da fuq? ^^^

[r00t]

http://i.imgur.com/MQXYf9F.gif

[Estolcles]

http://i.imgur.com/MQXYf9F.gif

I needed a laugh today. This .gif gave it to me. Thanks!

[gotrocks]

Can anyone explain what makes chemical weapons so special? Is there really a big difference between being killed by sarin gas and being killed by little pieces of metal tearing through your body?

I suspect our aversion to chemical weapons is due to similar reasons for our aversion to terrorism. It's a way for a relatively poor person/people to exert much greater power than they otherwise could. It would take many millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles to do the same damage done by 19 men on 9/11 for a fraction of that. 19 box cutters + 19 plane tickets = ~6k. We want other countries to follow certain rules of war because those rules benefit us. You may be saying that terrorism is qualitatively different because it targets civilians. If you are thinking this, please consider the massive amounts of collateral damage that our bombs cause. We have avenged 9/11 many times over in terms of civilian body count.

Put another way, I wonder if the following is true: The British hated the colonial soldiers that used guerrilla warfare in the same way we hate those that use chemical weapons, and for the same reasons.

two reasons.

there is a big difference between having an artery shredded by shrapnel and bleeding out in an hour, and being affected by a lethal dose of sarin gas. First, your nose starts to run, and then you vomit. Keep in mind that sarin is odorless and colorless, so chances are you dont even know whats happening. thats too bad, because in under a minute you piss and shit yourself, while again expelling the contents of your stomach. Now the fun starts. Immediately after doubling over to vomit, you snap backwards uncontrollably. if you are lucky, youll snap so hard you break your own spine. if not, youll be treated to the nightmarish hell that is nerve gas in full swing. See, nerve gas makes it so your nerve endings cant shut off. imagine the worst pain you could ever concieve. now put that pain all over your body, inside and out, at the same time. now imagine that while this is happening your body is convulsing uncontrollably in all directions, and you cant breathe. fortunately, most victims die of asphyxiation before this can go on too long. those who dont quickly fall into a coma and continue to convulse until their brain finally shuts down and they die. this whole process takes about a minute or two, but its likely the most hellish minute or two those victims will ever experience in their entire lives. this is the kind of torture normally reserved for torture porn movies. its the kind of thing we wish was never invented.

id love to hear you try to tell me youd take that over being shredded by shrapnel. no thanks.

number two. collateral damage. we can fire a smart missile through a window laded with just the right amount of explosives to kill the terrorists in that room and cause little damage to the building or anyone else inside it. that same missile armed with sarin gas, even a small amount, would likely clear a city block. heres the really fun part about sarin gas - it can stay on your clothes in lethal doses for around 30 minutes. And you cant see it. imagine arriving home from getting groceries to find your wife covered in shit, piss, and bloody vomit, dead on the floor, and then getting a runny nose while you cry over her dead body....

its nasty shit, kid. its not like being shot, or having your brain splattered by the concussive blast of a bomb. it needs to never be used again, period.

[Orruar]

two reasons.

there is a big difference between having an artery shredded by shrapnel and bleeding out in an hour, and being affected by a lethal dose of sarin gas. First, your nose starts to run, and then you vomit. Keep in mind that sarin is odorless and colorless, so chances are you dont even know whats happening. thats too bad, because in under a minute you piss and shit yourself, while again expelling the contents of your stomach. Now the fun starts. Immediately after doubling over to vomit, you snap backwards uncontrollably. if you are lucky, youll snap so hard you break your own spine. if not, youll be treated to the nightmarish hell that is nerve gas in full swing. See, nerve gas makes it so your nerve endings cant shut off. imagine the worst pain you could ever concieve. now put that pain all over your body, inside and out, at the same time. now imagine that while this is happening your body is convulsing uncontrollably in all directions, and you cant breathe. fortunately, most victims die of asphyxiation before this can go on too long. those who dont quickly fall into a coma and continue to convulse until their brain finally shuts down and they die. this whole process takes about a minute or two, but its likely the most hellish minute or two those victims will ever experience in their entire lives. this is the kind of torture normally reserved for torture porn movies. its the kind of thing we wish was never invented.

id love to hear you try to tell me youd take that over being shredded by shrapnel. no thanks.

number two. collateral damage. we can fire a smart missile through a window laded with just the right amount of explosives to kill the terrorists in that room and cause little damage to the building or anyone else inside it. that same missile armed with sarin gas, even a small amount, would likely clear a city block. heres the really fun part about sarin gas - it can stay on your clothes in lethal doses for around 30 minutes. And you cant see it. imagine arriving home from getting groceries to find your wife covered in shit, piss, and bloody vomit, dead on the floor, and then getting a runny nose while you cry over her dead body....

its nasty shit, kid. its not like being shot, or having your brain splattered by the concussive blast of a bomb. it needs to never be used again, period.

1) Your description of sarin gas death isn't consistent with most of what I've read on the subject. Most die within a minute or two from asphyxiation since nerve gasses tend to stop respiration. The real lucky ones have their hearts stopped and die very quickly. Not much worse than a heart attack. Also, you seem to be comparing the worst possible death from sarin to the best possible death from shrapnel. Many injuries from shrapnel involve hours of agony before finally being released from the pain via death. I'm not sure what the average sarin death vs average shrapnel death

2) Your description of how we use smart missiles to take out a room full of terrorists while leaving all the children in the next hours over unscathed is so ludicrously naive that it's difficult to take you seriously. I'm picturing some bomber pilot saying "hey guys, the house is actually a little smaller than we thought, I better come back and get some smaller bombs." Read some news, watch some Youtube videos from people reporting directly from places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then come back here and try to say what you just said with a straight face. Not only do we completely fail to hit the proper targets much of the time (wedding parties bombed with dozens of women/children dead), but even when we do hit a valid target, often many civilians are caught up in the blast.

[Orruar]

Since you're an expert, why don't you list the convention(s) that apply here.

Since it's clear that Kagatob has no idea which Geneva conventions may apply in this situation, I'll help him out.

The only one that could possibly apply is Protocol II, which was created specifically for domestic (civil) wars. However, Syria never signed P2, and so can not be in breach of that protocol. You could take the rather hawkish position that we're morally superior and thus could enforce this protocol even on those who haven't signed it. Besides the obvious reasons with that line of reasoning, there's the problem that the US hasn't even ratified P2. It would be difficult for us to claim that Syria must follow P2 when we haven't even bothered ratifying it.

[aowen]

It would be the 4th Geneva convention describing protection of civilians during war time, Protocol II, and the Geneva Protocol (the ban on chemical weapons). What are you all, fuck off retarded? Plus, Syria didn't sign one of those god damn things, because it didn't exist for the signing or drafting of most of that shit.

Moreover, if you think that bombing Syria is going to be anything but ineffective or worse, detrimental, you're next level retarded.

I am just outraged that these people are using weapons we didn't sell them, how dare they.

[Daldolma]

Can anyone explain what makes chemical weapons so special? Is there really a big difference between being killed by sarin gas and being killed by little pieces of metal tearing through your body?

I suspect our aversion to chemical weapons is due to similar reasons for our aversion to terrorism. It's a way for a relatively poor person/people to exert much greater power than they otherwise could. It would take many millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles to do the same damage done by 19 men on 9/11 for a fraction of that. 19 box cutters + 19 plane tickets = ~6k. We want other countries to follow certain rules of war because those rules benefit us. You may be saying that terrorism is qualitatively different because it targets civilians. If you are thinking this, please consider the massive amounts of collateral damage that our bombs cause. We have avenged 9/11 many times over in terms of civilian body count.

Put another way, I wonder if the following is true: The British hated the colonial soldiers that used guerrilla warfare in the same way we hate those that use chemical weapons, and for the same reasons.

overstating your point. and you're conflating chemical weapons with terrorism.

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.

[Stinkum]

Da fuq? ^^^

It's an illustration of how everyone imagines you look like anytime you post your warped, morally autistic political opinions.

[aowen]

Chemical weapons are horrible. America has used them many times: Agent Orange (but we only meant to defoliate!), Napalm, etc. Assad's use of chemical weapons should not be at the crux of the argument for whether or not we enter Syria, despite what many would have you believe.

There are several more important aspects to consider, namely what would actually be achieved by bombing. Do we actually think the rebels are an altruistic people deserving of help who will be pioneers of peace in the region? Do we think the two sides will remain unified after the civil war is over? What will toppling the state do?

I understand wanting to punish Assad, but what makes him different from so many other people who deserve a spanking that are completely ignored. I do not think anyone feels like dicking around more in the Middle East, and a simple bombing campaign will do fuck all, so I'd say let this one fizzle out.

[Daldolma]

oh yeah as it relates to syria we're not interested bc of possible chemical weapons

we're interested because we want neither a pro-iran, anti-west dictator nor a fundamentalist regime. assad is pulling ahead so we have a stake in leveling the field to keep things in flux with nobody in power

duh

[aowen]

Most dictators are anti-west, otherwise they'd be social democrats instead of fascists authoritarians. Instead of bombing Syria, we could withdraw support for Israel and have like 1000x the diplomatic and security success with the region.

It is not our job to go leveling playing fields with bombs in sovereign entities, using human rights sporadically to justify it. I don't know how we haven't figured out to just leave the place alone, we just picked up where the British left off fucking all the people around.

[aowen]

Lest we forget the one semi-sane democratically elected leader in Iran we overthrew, resulting in a snowball of shitty regimes, fundamentalism, and anti-westernism. Stop selling weapons to those fuckers too, always bites us back when things inevitably go down the shitter.

[Daldolma]

it's not really a matter of it being our job. it's a matter of national interest

we have an interest in keeping syria destabilized

also our support for israel is our in with the whole middle east. we basically have american sparta in the center of the most oil-rich region on the planet for the cost of relative pennies. we give more to pakistan plus egypt than we give to israel, and we could launch a war from israel. pakistan wouldn't even give us osama. if we could buy pakistan as cheaply as we bought israel, we would

[Orruar]

overstating your point. and you're conflating chemical weapons with terrorism.

...

I didn't conflate anything. I said the two are similar in one respect. That would be like if I said dogs and cats are similar because they both have four legs, and you came back and said "you're conflating dogs with cats". Learn the difference between comparison and conflation. You are conflating the two terms.

[Daldolma]

^ p true, was skimming and missed the sentence re: similarities.

doesn't impact the gist of the argument though

[Orruar]

^ p true, was skimming and missed the sentence re: similarities.

doesn't impact the gist of the argument though

Well, it sort of does the impact the argument, since the entire argument was based on the notion that I was conflating the two terms.

[Daldolma]

Well, it sort of does the impact the argument, since the entire argument was based on the notion that I was conflating the two terms.

literally none of the argument is reliant on that

you asked what makes chemical weapons "special", which i took to mean more flagrantly unacceptable than conventional weaponry. i explained the material differences between chemical and conventional warfare.

you then ascribed condemnation of terrorism to a desire to keep poor people from evening the playing field. i explained that a) that's incorrect and b) the underlying principle which condemns terrorism is the same underlying principle that demands american restraint and has greatly benefited the other side of the "war on terror" for the duration of this conflict

you're free to disagree, but none of the points that followed were founded on a conflation of the two

[Nirgon]

Of all chemical weapons expert opinions in here, I like the one from gotrocks. His posts are usually great too.

[aowen]

it's not really a matter of it being our job. it's a matter of national interest

we have an interest in keeping syria destabilized

also our support for israel is our in with the whole middle east. we basically have american sparta in the center of the most oil-rich region on the planet for the cost of relative pennies. we give more to pakistan plus egypt than we give to israel, and we could launch a war from israel. pakistan wouldn't even give us osama. if we could buy pakistan as cheaply as we bought israel, we would

Actually it's not in our interest. Stable governments facilitate trade and business. Assad is not even winning, and I wouldn't put Iran on the list of highest plausible threats.

However, the bigger points I'd like to make are about Israel. Israel is not at all in our interest. While at one point you could argue that Israel was our door into the Middle East, now it is a source of tension with some of our closest allies, and strains our relations worldwide. It harms our relations with other countries in the Middle East, and implicates us in human rights violations. We have used so so many UN vetoes to trump even our Western allies. Israel also now serves as little economic interest to us in the international arena, but bears some economic importance domestically pertaining to maintaining the support from the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Israel has turned into a liability, alienating us from others, requiring foreign aid, and creating imbalance in a region that may have been on its way to healing wounds long ago if it wasn't constantly being interrupted.

Additionally, I do not support destabilizing a region and causing death to better one's own position. While I already said I don't think it does better our position, I wouldn't support the policy even if it did. Blatant imperialism is out of style, subtle economic manipulation is in, didn't you hear?

[Stinkum]

yea im not sure at all why daldolma went on a random israel tangent there, but his post overall sounds like it was copy-pasted from something written in the cold war era. the geopolitical chessboard has changed drastically, and israel is a strategic liability at this point.

[Orruar]

literally none of the argument is reliant on that

you asked what makes chemical weapons "special", which i took to mean more flagrantly unacceptable than conventional weaponry. i explained the material differences between chemical and conventional warfare.

you then ascribed condemnation of terrorism to a desire to keep poor people from evening the playing field. i explained that a) that's incorrect and b) the underlying principle which condemns terrorism is the same underlying principle that demands american restraint and has greatly benefited the other side of the "war on terror" for the duration of this conflict

you're free to disagree, but none of the points that followed were founded on a conflation of the two

Eh, not really. The first point of my original post was a question for which you did stay on topic mostly. But you completely went off on a tangent with respect to the second point in the comparison of terrorism and chemical weapons. Going back to the cats/dogs analogy, I said that cats and dogs are similar in one respect and then theorized as to the implications of that similarity. You then came back with a post listing off the differences between cats and dogs. It has nothing to do with my point.

[Daldolma]

Actually it's not in our interest. Stable governments facilitate trade and business. Assad is not even winning, and I wouldn't put Iran on the list of highest plausible threats.

However, the bigger points I'd like to make are about Israel. Israel is not at all in our interest. While at one point you could argue that Israel was our door into the Middle East, now it is a source of tension with some of our closest allies, and strains our relations worldwide. It harms our relations with other countries in the Middle East, and implicates us in human rights violations. We have used so so many UN vetoes to trump even our Western allies. Israel also now serves as little economic interest to us in the international arena, but bears some economic importance domestically pertaining to maintaining the support from the Israel and Jewish lobbies. Israel has turned into a liability, alienating us from others, requiring foreign aid, and creating imbalance in a region that may have been on its way to healing wounds long ago if it wasn't constantly being interrupted.

Additionally, I do not support destabilizing a region and causing death to better one's own position. While I already said I don't think it does better our position, I wouldn't support the policy even if it did. Blatant imperialism is out of style, subtle economic manipulation is in, didn't you hear?

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

The rest is basically immaterial. You're wrong about Israel's economic value to us, especially when contrasted with Syria -- it's fairly significant, particularly their weapons research and development. But ultimately replaceable. The UN is impotent and the "tension" you're referencing is bluster more than substance. The future of Palestine isn't going to crack NATO. And the concept of Israel keeping that region unstable is lulsy. Syria is ripping itself apart, Iraq is ripping itself apart, Afghanistan and Pakistan are half tribal, Egypt just had a full-on coup d'etat, Lebanon is being run by Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are about 18 months away from an arms race. That region is fucked beyond repair by 200 years of foreign intervention and Sunni-Shiite competition. Hating Israel is the only unifying force in the region.

[Daldolma]

Eh, not really. The first point of my original post was a question for which you did stay on topic mostly. But you completely went off on a tangent with respect to the second point in the comparison of terrorism and chemical weapons. Going back to the cats/dogs analogy, I said that cats and dogs are similar in one respect and then theorized as to the implications of that similarity. You then came back with a post listing off the differences between cats and dogs. It has nothing to do with my point.

the second point is not a tangent -- it's the answer as to why condemnation of terrorism is not simply a tool to keep the poor from leveling the playing field. it's unrelated to the first point, which is why chemical warfare is different than conventional warfare

it's cool, though. you obviously don't want to discuss the merits of what you actually said, so you'd rather talk about cats and dogs

[aowen]

Stable Syria is a puzzle piece to a stable region. Israel is the odd man out, has been since its conception, and causes more trouble than it's worth. Syria's economy is pretty useless to us, true. That would also make its destabilization equally important. Fact is in this instance, protracting instability costs lives and not much else, something bombing is not going to help.

The middle east is actually decreasing in importance for oil, as our 20 year move is to become as energy independent as possible, hence expansion of upstream oil and gas in the US combined with alternative energy research and energy efficiency incentives.

You're right, Israel won't crack NATO, another fairly impotent international organization. However, Israel is also of little economic significance, their weapons research is a drop in the pale to anywhere else, and in fact, they are much more dependent on us for weapons research and funding. We also pay them a couple billion a year in foreign aid, also insignificant when looking at our greater economy, but when looking at their FDI and trade, they hardly make up the difference. Let's also remember that the given reason for 9/11 by Osama was our policy with Israel, and that much terrorism is directed at us because of our support for Israel. Compound that with displacing millions of people, Israel ignoring our directives for halting settlements, bombing Beirut's airport and the other thousands of deaths from bombing campaigns and Mossad raids, Israel does nothing for us. It has officially cost us. Don't pretend like it's of any value anymore.

[Orruar]

...

it's cool, though. you obviously don't want to discuss the merits of what you actually said, so you'd rather talk about cats and dogs

It's called using an analogy since you were clearly unable to comprehend the original point. And it's an analogy that already proved useful once since you even admitted that you had misread...

[aowen]

You want an animal analogy? Syria is the hamster no one cares about and Israel is a bad dog that bites its owner and doesn't listen when you tell it to come. The only thing to do with bad dogs is put them down. The only thing to do with hamsters is let them run the wheel in their cage until they get tired.

[Stinkum]

Stable Syria doesn't facilitate anything for us. They're a minor economy that we barely interact with. Cuba has a higher GDP.

And Israel is overtly our door into the Middle East. It's not a past tense thing, and the Middle East is going to be significantly more vital over the next 20 years than it was for the past 20 years. Keeping the oil flowing is of utmost importance to our economy and by extension our military.

– the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

– Israeli bases are not available for US use.

– none of Israel’s neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

– Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

– US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

– Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

– Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

[Daldolma]

It's called using an analogy since you were clearly unable to comprehend the original point. And it's an analogy that already proved useful once since you even admitted that you had misread...

your points were simple and incorrect. there was no struggle to comprehend. you've yet to address those points and have now dragged on a discussion about a single, throw away sentence that i admitted from the start was based on skimming your post and missing a line. you win that point, bro -- you can quit belaboring it. unfortunately your actual points were wrong which is why you're running from them and nestling up with this ridiculous discussion of conflation

[Orruar]

You want an animal analogy? Syria is the hamster no one cares about and Israel is a bad dog that bites its owner and doesn't listen when you tell it to come. The only thing to do with bad dogs is put them down. The only thing to do with hamsters is let them run the wheel in their cage until they get tired.

Or perhaps we need to send Richard Gere to Syria.

[gotrocks]

1) Your description of sarin gas death isn't consistent with most of what I've read on the subject. Most die within a minute or two from asphyxiation since nerve gasses tend to stop respiration. The real lucky ones have their hearts stopped and die very quickly. Not much worse than a heart attack. Also, you seem to be comparing the worst possible death from sarin to the best possible death from shrapnel. Many injuries from shrapnel involve hours of agony before finally being released from the pain via death. I'm not sure what the average sarin death vs average shrapnel death

2) Your description of how we use smart missiles to take out a room full of terrorists while leaving all the children in the next hours over unscathed is so ludicrously naive that it's difficult to take you seriously. I'm picturing some bomber pilot saying "hey guys, the house is actually a little smaller than we thought, I better come back and get some smaller bombs." Read some news, watch some Youtube videos from people reporting directly from places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then come back here and try to say what you just said with a straight face. Not only do we completely fail to hit the proper targets much of the time (wedding parties bombed with dozens of women/children dead), but even when we do hit a valid target, often many civilians are caught up in the blast.
Sarin gas rarely gets you from asphyxiation before you experience the nerve pain/spasms. And you will definitely piss yourself, shit yourself, and vomit. I guess arguing which is the worst way to die is kind of a moot point, since they are all horrible, but there's a special sort of fucked upness that comes from dying from nerve gas that you just don't get from a bomb concussion (which is how people usually die from our missile's/bombs, not shrapnel).

I am not so naive to think all missile strikes cause zero collateral damage, but as daldolma states below, it's intent to reduce harm that's the difference. And that IS a difference. That missile through the window MAY take out the floor in the building and crush a bunch of children below - unfortunately, that's war, and its fucked up. The point is that we're advancing our technology to try to prevent that from happening. Chemical weapons do the opposite.

Also, your entire argument is based off the fact that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative to...? what? nuclear weapons? Sure. But they are far from cheap. The facilities required to create sarin gas in a safe environment are still expensive. I guess that could be taken as 'the poor man's' solution. But when your poor man lives in a 25,000 sq ft palace and rests his feet on the backs of religious slaves, its hardly an accurate analogy. Especially considering one of the poorest countries in the world, north korea, is nuclear capable.

overstating your point. and you're conflating chemical weapons with terrorism.

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.

Exactly.

Of all chemical weapons expert opinions in here, I like the one from gotrocks. His posts are usually great too.

Thought this thread needed some dramatic flair :D

I'd like to point out that I think we have no business in syria. I don't want another iraq/afghanistan war, and I didn't want one at that time either. I would not be opposed to dropping a few bombs if other countries decided they wanted to put their own boots on the ground, however.

The United States is in a somewhat unique position of having a bloated military budget and lots of expensive toys no one else has. If we can throw b-2 bombers and smart bombs to knock out radar installation/other high value targets that saves other courageous men and womens lives (ie, foreign pilots) i think we should do it. Just have an exit strategy and stick to it (get out in 30 days, something like that).

[Orruar]

your points were simple and incorrect. there was no struggle to comprehend. you've yet to address those points and have now dragged on a discussion about a single, throw away sentence that i admitted from the start was based on skimming your post and missing a line. you win that point, bro -- you can quit belaboring it. unfortunately your actual points were wrong which is why you're running from them and nestling up with this ridiculous discussion of conflation

Yes, my points were simple and easy to understand, and yet you failed and continue to fail to understand them. Which is why I pull out the "cow goes moo" level analogies in hopes of helping you relate my points to something you may be more familiar with.

And I stand by everything I said. I still suspect we have an aversion to chemical weapons because of how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with them. Keep in mind when I say "we", I'm speaking about our military and civilian leaders, who are in positions of power to condemn/use weapons and wage war. I'm sure if you speak to all 300 million Americans, you can get a wide range of views on why they dislike chemical weapons. And I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the Pak/Afgh population that is scared shitless about death from the sky and New Yorkers who are scared shitless about death from the sky. You may think our drones dropping bombs is much different than the 9/11 hijackers, but the effects are pretty much the same. A bunch of people die, and many more than that get to live in fear.

[Daldolma]

– the US has no bases or troop presence in Israel and stores only minimal military supplies in the country (and these under terms that allow these supplies to be used essentially at will by the IDF).

– Israeli bases are not available for US use.

– none of Israel’s neighbors will facilitate overflight for military aircraft transiting Israeli territory, let alone taking off from there. Israel is useless for purposes of strategic logistics or power projection.

– Israel is worse than irrelevant to the defense of Middle Eastern energy supplies; the US relationship with Israel has jeopardized these supplies (as in 1973), not contributed to securing them.

– US relations with Israel do not bolster US prestige in Middle Eastern oil-producing countries or assist the US to "dominate" them, they complicate and weaken US influence; they have at times resulted in the suspension of US relations with such countries.

– Israel does not have the diplomatic prestige or capacity to marshal support for US interests or policies globally or in its own region and does not do so; on the contrary, it requires constant American defense against political condemnation and sanctions by the international community.

– Israel does not fund aid programs in third countries to complement and support US foreign or military policy as other allies and strategic partners do.

copy-pasta from chas freeman. i can respond with a copy-pasta from blackwill and slocombe (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/israel-a-strategic-asset-for-the-united-states), but we can play that game all day. we both get it, it's a divisive issue. so let's talk practice instead of theory

why do you believe we went to war with iraq? do you think it was for democracy? for WMDs? for 9/11? no, we know it was for the oil and control in the region. what did that war cost us in terms of dollars, lives, and international esteem? now look at israel. what does israel cost us? it's a relative pittance. we've bought a proxy state in the middle east for next to nothing

[Daldolma]

Yes, my points were simple and easy to understand, and yet you failed and continue to fail to understand them. Which is why I pull out the "cow goes moo" level analogies in hopes of helping you relate my points to something you may be more familiar with.

And I stand by everything I said. I still suspect we have an aversion to chemical weapons because of how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with them. Keep in mind when I say "we", I'm speaking about our military and civilian leaders, who are in positions of power to condemn/use weapons and wage war. I'm sure if you speak to all 300 million Americans, you can get a wide range of views on why they dislike chemical weapons. And I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the Pak/Afgh population that is scared shitless about death from the sky and New Yorkers who are scared shitless about death from the sky. You may think our drones dropping bombs is much different than the 9/11 hijackers, but the effects are pretty much the same. A bunch of people die, and many more than that get to live in fear.

we're almost there... now that you've repeated yourself, i can repeat myself, and you can respond

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.

[gotrocks]

we're almost there... now that you've repeated yourself, i can repeat myself, and you can respond

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.
i already reposted this for you :)

[Daldolma]

oh, and to be fair, no: there's no difference to the person getting bombed. but intent has always been a vital consideration in moral and legal determinations. intending to kill civilians is significantly different than intending to kill combatants and unintentionally killing civilians in a densely packed area.

as discussed already, if america intended -- or even had no qualms about -- civilian death, this conflict would have ended exceptionally quickly. respect for civilian life is the only reason al qaeda, et al has been able to operate effectively. so your notion that international dictates against targeting civilians (as with terrorism) benefit the strong is bunk. it more greatly benefits the weak, who are able to hide amongst civilians as their primary measure of defense

[Orruar]

Sarin gas rarely gets you from asphyxiation before you experience the nerve pain/spasms. And you will definitely piss yourself, shit yourself, and vomit. I guess arguing which is the worst way to die is kind of a moot point, since they are all horrible, but there's a special sort of fucked upness that comes from dying from nerve gas that you just don't get from a bomb concussion (which is how people usually die from our missile's/bombs, not shrapnel).

That's my point though. They are all horrible and yet Americans seem pretty apathetic
to conventional bombing. I think it's just a matter of shrapnel deaths being around for centuries and we've gotten used to the idea. In addition, the bomb concussion only kills those who are very close (within a few tens of feet). Shrapnel gets those farther away. So in a rather twisted irony, the people we're targeting (bad guys hopefully) die immediately while the collateral damage gets to live in agony for minutes or hours before dying. And I'm really not sure if living in agony for an hour is any better than living in horror for a minute. I'd imagine it's worse.

I am not so naive to think all missile strikes cause zero collateral damage, but as daldolma states below, it's intent to reduce harm that's the difference. And that IS a difference. That missile through the window MAY take out the floor in the building and crush a bunch of children below - unfortunately, that's war, and its fucked up. The point is that we're advancing our technology to try to prevent that from happening. Chemical weapons do the opposite.

To me, intent isn't anywhere near as important as outcomes. A ruthless dictator is horrible, but a dictator who thinks their intentions are pure... watch out. And while we're trying to advance technology to reduce collateral damage, and I'd hope we could fight a war without a single civilian death, we're nowhere near that point. We can't pretend like Assad's killing of civilians is somehow worse than our killing of civilians. Keep in mind that just in the past decade, we've killed many times what Assad has. And I haven't even brought up the use of white phosphorus or depleted uranium. Those are the low hanging fruit when discussing America's moral superiority, and I thought I'd take a shot at some less obvious points. Nothing anyone has said has really convinced me that these points are not valid.

Also, your entire argument is based off the fact that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative to...? what? nuclear weapons? Sure. But they are far from cheap. The facilities required to create sarin gas in a safe environment are still expensive. I guess that could be taken as 'the poor man's' solution. But when your poor man lives in a 25,000 sq ft palace and rests his feet on the backs of religious slaves, its hardly an accurate analogy. Especially considering one of the poorest countries in the world, north korea, is nuclear capable.

Chemical weapons are cheap in relation to conventional weapons. Yes, a single chemical tipped missile will cost more than an explosive one, but the chemical one will be far more effective.

[Stinkum]

copy-pasta from chas freeman. i can respond with a copy-pasta from blackwill and slocombe (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/israel-a-strategic-asset-for-the-united-states), but we can play that game all day. we both get it, it's a divisive issue. so let's talk practice instead of theory

why do you believe we went to war with iraq? do you think it was for democracy? for WMDs? for 9/11? no, we know it was for the oil and control in the region. what did that war cost us in terms of dollars, lives, and international esteem? now look at israel. what does israel cost us? it's a relative pittance. we've bought a proxy state in the middle east for next to nothing

obvi a copy paste.

i would respond properly to this post but by the time i would have wasted 1 hour doing so, and you'll have already moved the goal post to another topic. in the end we'll just speak over each other and no one will listen. i think israel is a geopolitical liability and you think it's an asset, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle i.e. israel is a tertiary U.S. interest in a very complex and changing region that we are both oversimplifying shit

i wish you the best of luck in your determined mission to prove that you are right about a political point on an Elfsim forum

[gotrocks]

That's my point though. They are all horrible and yet Americans seem pretty apathetic
to conventional bombing. I think it's just a matter of shrapnel deaths being around for centuries and we've gotten used to the idea. In addition, the bomb concussion only kills those who are very close (within a few tens of feet). Shrapnel gets those farther away. So in a rather twisted irony, the people we're targeting (bad guys hopefully) die immediately while the collateral damage gets to live in agony for minutes or hours before dying. And I'm really not sure if living in agony for an hour is any better than living in horror for a minute. I'd imagine it's worse.

The smart weapons America is using today have reduced shrapnel. The casings on the bomb itself are designed to be vaporized in the explosion. I think we can agree to disagree here, though - you can feel free to die by nerve gas, and I'll take a bomb blast to the face :D


To me, intent isn't anywhere near as important as outcomes. A ruthless dictator is horrible, but a dictator who thinks their intentions are pure... watch out. And while we're trying to advance technology to reduce collateral damage, and I'd hope we could fight a war without a single civilian death, we're nowhere near that point. We can't pretend like Assad's killing of civilians is somehow worse than our killing of civilians. Keep in mind that just in the past decade, we've killed many times what Assad has. And I haven't even brought up the use of white phosphorus or depleted uranium. Those are the low hanging fruit when discussing America's moral superiority, and I thought I'd take a shot at some less obvious points. Nothing anyone has said has really convinced me that these points are not valid.


So.... we should just never act against atrocities and horrible people? War should just disappear and we should all hold hands and kiss and love each other?

Dude, we are totally in the same boat here. I agree 100%. I truly wish we could never drop a single bomb again, disarm our entire arsenal, and use our m4's and 16's as coat hangers, but that's never going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. We're going to have to drop bombs, and we're going to have to shoot missiles, and you had better believe the INTENT to only kill the bad guys makes a helluva fucking difference when you compare it to someone dropping a low yield nuke or chemical weapon and wasting an entire city. Outcome is NOT the only thing that matters, it's only part of the equation. Even if it was, the outcome of using a chemical weapon will always be FAR worse than a conventional explosive tipped warhead. Period.

[Orruar]

the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.

"Uncontrollable" is not accurate. It's not like chemical weapons just run off in a random direction and hit people miles away. They hit a much larger area, and they disperse based upon wind patterns, but that doesn't mean they're uncontrollable. You still chose the location you want to affect. If chemicals truly were uncontrollable, farmers wouldn't bother spraying crops with airplanes because the pesticides are uncontrollable. And as I've pointed out numerous times now, it's not clear that chemical weapons are that much more cruel than conventional weapons. We only accept death by metal or fire because it has been around for much longer and we've become accustomed to that method of death. But if given the choice, I'm not sure if I'd choose to have half of my intestines ripped out by shards of whatever structure I was living in, then lay in agony for an hour or longer. And as far as chemical agents go, sarin is actually not nearly as bad as some.

terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.

Again, I'm not sure if the people living in Pak/Afgh really see a big difference between what we do and what the terrorists do. And I'm not denying that terrorism is flat out unacceptable from a moral standpoint. My point is that killing tens of thousands in the middle east is no more morally acceptable in my view. You see, when I compare what we do in some way to terrorism, it's not because I see terrorism as perfectly fine. It's because I see what we do as perfectly wrong. Finally, it's not clear that the 9/11 terrorists were targeting purely civilians. Look at what they attacked: The centers of our economic (WTC) and military (pentagon + white house) power. The notion that terrorists just go after whatever innocent people they can in order to instill fear is a rather childish view. Most of us figured this out shortly after 9/11.

[aowen]

I have a theory. Daldolma's sensibilities are offended by the smell of pork. The color of money in any country is what wet's his appetite. In fact he conducted a study to find out which currency, if any, has its worth in actual metal. Saturdays are his stay-in days. When he pulls up next to children in a van, he tells them to go easy on the candy, shit ain't free you know. His favorite movies are by the Cohen Brothers.

As for Israel, I don't believe there's much middle ground. Capital flows from the US to Israel, not the other way. We get nothing in return. Lot of help Israel was in Iraq. Lot of help they are with Hezbollah etc. No, they incite violence, and for every enemy they step on, they create a few more. The U.S.'s proud tradition of backing dictators with strategic positions while touting democratic and humanitarian values has proven to play out only in the short term, and hypocritical/detrimental in the long run. Israel is the UK's and US's brainchild, I wonder what other stupid ideas we have hidden up our ass, please don't let bombing Syria be the next.

[Orruar]

The smart weapons America is using today have reduced shrapnel. The casings on the bomb itself are designed to be vaporized in the explosion. I think we can agree to disagree here, though - you can feel free to die by nerve gas, and I'll take a bomb blast to the face :D

Umm, you do realize that the shrapnel deaths are not necessarily from the bomb itself, but from whatever it is the bomb hits? When a bomb blows up inside a house, the house becomes one giant grenade.

So.... we should just never act against atrocities and horrible people? War should just disappear and we should all hold hands and kiss and love each other?

Dude, we are totally in the same boat here. I agree 100%. I truly wish we could never drop a single bomb again, disarm our entire arsenal, and use our m4's and 16's as coat hangers, but that's never going to happen. Not anytime soon, anyway. We're going to have to drop bombs, and we're going to have to shoot missiles, and you had better believe the INTENT to only kill the bad guys makes a helluva fucking difference when you compare it to someone dropping a low yield nuke or chemical weapon and wasting an entire city. Outcome is NOT the only thing that matters, it's only part of the equation. Even if it was, the outcome of using a chemical weapon will always be FAR worse than a conventional explosive tipped warhead. Period.

You've bought into the bullshit first peddled by Bush and now Obama. We don't need to be a part of the killing that is going on. "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was a jingoistic slogan when the Bush admin created it and it's just as jingoistic now that the Obama admin is using it. Syria is of 0 threat to the US.

The only acceptable justification for intervention in all these various countries is to help the people and reduce the suffering in the world. And while I support this goal 100%, it should be abundantly clear to anyone who hasn't been living in a cave for the past 12 years that our military does an exceedingly poor job at achieving this goal. The countries we have become involved with have quickly deteriorated into an orgy of violence and bloodshed. We need to be looking for other ways, but instead our only solution is "bomb group A, give more weapons to group B". If you support this kind of action as a solution for the killing that is going on, you're either evil or an idiot.

[Peatree]

I think we should just give every monkey in the world a knife and a hand grenade. This should solve everything.

[Daldolma]

I have a theory. Daldolma's sensibilities are offended by the smell of pork. The color of money in any country is what wet's his appetite. In fact he conducted a study to find out which currency, if any, has its worth in actual metal. Saturdays are his stay-in days. When he pulls up next to children in a van, he tells them to go easy on the candy, shit ain't free you know. His favorite movies are by the Cohen Brothers.

As for Israel, I don't believe there's much middle ground. Capital flows from the US to Israel, not the other way. We get nothing in return. Lot of help Israel was in Iraq. Lot of help they are with Hezbollah etc. No, they incite violence, and for every enemy they step on, they create a few more. The U.S.'s proud tradition of backing dictators with strategic positions while touting democratic and humanitarian values has proven to play out only in the short term, and hypocritical/detrimental in the long run. Israel is the UK's and US's brainchild, I wonder what other stupid ideas we have hidden up our ass, please don't let bombing Syria be the next.

newp. pras jesus. i simply concur with american policy re: israel

if i were a jew i'd probably hate israel, it's too easy of a target

ps you're a bigot

[Estolcles]

It's an illustration of how everyone imagines you look like anytime you post your warped, morally autistic political opinions.

My "warped, morally autistic opinions" are influenced by several friends of mine who are Gulf War vets who are looking at being deployed AGAIN because of this bullshit. The "Glass Project" being a direct quote.

[Lojik]

+10 internets to ahldagor for posting Sherman. I think it's often lost how awful war is, and that only truly righteous causes warrant aggression. You must be sure 100% that what you're doing is necessary, because war is hell, and cornered dogs will do anything to survive. If you're not willing to do whatever it takes to win that war, it's probably not worth fighting. What is one way of killing vs. another.

[Stinkum]

ps you're a bigot

if anything you come off as the bigot in this thread but lets not sink to that level

[Orruar]

+10 internets to ahldagor for posting Sherman. I think it's often lost how awful war is, and that only truly righteous causes warrant aggression. You must be sure 100% that what you're doing is necessary, because war is hell, and cornered dogs will do anything to survive. If you're not willing to do whatever it takes to win that war, it's probably not worth fighting. What is one way of killing vs. another.

My sentiments exactly. We've been half-assing wars for decades now and failing every time. The only way we should ever fight war is all out, and only when absolutely necessary. Syria doesn't seem to fit the bill. Iraq didn't fit the bill. Afghan kinda did, but we didn't even bother half-assing that one. Maybe quarter-ass if you're being generous.

What happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"? We do the exact opposite now.

[Daldolma]

"Uncontrollable" is not accurate. It's not like chemical weapons just run off in a random direction and hit people miles away. They hit a much larger area, and they disperse based upon wind patterns, but that doesn't mean they're uncontrollable. You still chose the location you want to affect. If chemicals truly were uncontrollable, farmers wouldn't bother spraying crops with airplanes because the pesticides are uncontrollable. And as I've pointed out numerous times now, it's not clear that chemical weapons are that much more cruel than conventional weapons. We only accept death by metal or fire because it has been around for much longer and we've become accustomed to that method of death. But if given the choice, I'm not sure if I'd choose to have half of my intestines ripped out by shards of whatever structure I was living in, then lay in agony for an hour or longer. And as far as chemical agents go, sarin is actually not nearly as bad as some.



Again, I'm not sure if the people living in Pak/Afgh really see a big difference between what we do and what the terrorists do. And I'm not denying that terrorism is flat out unacceptable from a moral standpoint. My point is that killing tens of thousands in the middle east is no more morally acceptable in my view. You see, when I compare what we do in some way to terrorism, it's not because I see terrorism as perfectly fine. It's because I see what we do as perfectly wrong. Finally, it's not clear that the 9/11 terrorists were targeting purely civilians. Look at what they attacked: The centers of our economic (WTC) and military (pentagon + white house) power. The notion that terrorists just go after whatever innocent people they can in order to instill fear is a rather childish view. Most of us figured this out shortly after 9/11.

by uncontrollable, i don't mean random. i mean literally uncontrolled. we all know that our bombs and bombers are imperfect, but we have the technology to hit targets within a few yards. there is a degree of precision with conventional weaponry that isn't there with chemical weapons. by their very nature, chemical weapons are attacks on civilians

and i understand your point re: intention, but it does matter. if it didn't matter, there's no reason for restraint. in a moral vacuum, terrorists use chemical weapons and america carpet bombs the region. it's a lose-lose. the restraints of respect for civilian life hamper both the powerful and the weak, but i believe they are far more limiting for the powerful

[Orruar]

by uncontrollable, i don't mean random. i mean literally uncontrolled. we all know that our bombs and bombers are imperfect, but we have the technology to hit targets within a few yards. there is a degree of precision with conventional weaponry that isn't there with chemical weapons. by their very nature, chemical weapons are attacks on civilians

and i understand your point re: intention, but it does matter. if it didn't matter, there's no reason for restraint. in a moral vacuum, terrorists use chemical weapons and america carpet bombs the region. it's a lose-lose. the restraints of respect for civilian life hamper both the powerful and the weak, but i believe they are far more limiting for the powerful

So by "uncontrollable", you actually meant "wide area" or "imprecise". They're not the same thing. Try and use more precision with your words, else I might think you're trying to create the text equivalent of chemical weapons. Come to think of it, your posts do tend to make the eyes bleed...

I don't think intentions are completely irrelevant, but that they are given far too much consideration. Many people will simply accept any action as long as it has good intentions without fully understanding the consequences. To my mind, that is far more dangerous than willful acts of evil.

[aowen]

newp. pras jesus. i simply concur with american policy re: israel

if i were a jew i'd probably hate israel, it's too easy of a target

ps you're a bigot

I am a bigot? I was making a joke. You support a nation that has forced people, ironically, to live in UN and charity subsidized camps for decades, done false flag operations in other countries to support movement to their own (fucking nutty zionism), massacred civilians (Sabra and Shatila Massacre as one example), elected one of the guys who did it as president (Bibi the Butcher Netanyahu), refuses to negotiate for peace, and builds a wall reminiscent of the Berlin wall. I don't give a shit about strategy at that point, I am not going to support a place like that, and neither does the international community. And you can sit here and point fingers at the rest of the dirtbags in the region, 1 we dont support them, 2 that hatred has been bred out of desperation and asinine policy. The U.S. doesn't even agree with a lot of the shit they do for obvious reasons, and I haven't even mentioned their reactionary bombing campaigns or continuing settlement of land that isn't theirs. The U.S. is the only reason Israel isn't sanctioned by almost everywhere in the world, much less a crater. There is no way to say that having that piece of shit on our side is a good strategy, they contribute absolutely nothing, and have caused us more than enough grief. I have no bleeding heart for that place.

[Daldolma]

if anything you come off as the bigot in this thread but lets not sink to that level

wat

[aowen]

And praise jesus? You must be dumb

[Lojik]

American foreign policy sometimes reminds me of a scifi story where the main character goes around searching for a monster that's killing people. Only after a while he finally realizes that he's the monster. I'm sure that's happened in a famous novel that I read, someone help me out here.

Many people will simply accept any action as long as it has good intentions without fully understanding the consequences. To my mind, that is far more dangerous than willful acts of evil.

Well put. What's the quotation..."Evil exists when good men do nothing?" I think a better one would be "Evil exists when ignorance prevails."

[Estolcles]

American foreign policy sometimes reminds me of a scifi story where the main character goes around searching for a monster that's killing people. Only after a while he finally realizes that he's the monster. I'm sure that's happened in a famous novel that I read, someone help me out here.



Well put. What's the quotation..."Evil exists when good men do nothing?" I think a better one would be "Evil exists when ignorance prevails."

"I Am Legend" is the book you're thinking of, in recent memory.

They just changed the ending for the movie to make Will Smith not look like an asshole.

[Orruar]

American foreign policy sometimes reminds me of a scifi story where the main character goes around searching for a monster that's killing people. Only after a while he finally realizes that he's the monster. I'm sure that's happened in a famous novel that I read, someone help me out here.

The movie Identity is sort of like this.

[Daldolma]

Try and use more precision with your words.

try *to* find out why the above statement is unintentionally hilarious

I meant exactly what I said. They're inherently uncontrollable. A vague locational target does not satisfy any degree of "control" within the context of weapons delivery. Your false dichotomy between "controlled" and utterly random is ridiculous.

Whatever though, you're boring me. Your opinions are flatly illogical and instead of defending them, you're getting offended and throwing out insults

[aowen]

Well put. What's the quotation..."Evil exists when good men do nothing?" I think a better one would be "Evil exists when ignorance prevails."

I agree with this, but I also think evil exists when Henry Kissinger has been involved.

I have a deep-seated doubt that U.S. foreign policy flows solely from naive altruism rather than ulterior motives based on realist interpretations of people and international relations.

[Daldolma]

I am a bigot? I was making a joke. You support a nation that has forced people, ironically, to live in UN and charity subsidized camps for decades, done false flag operations in other countries to support movement to their own (fucking nutty zionism), massacred civilians (Sabra and Shatila Massacre as one example), elected one of the guys who did it as president (Bibi the Butcher Netanyahu), refuses to negotiate for peace, and builds a wall reminiscent of the Berlin wall. I don't give a shit about strategy at that point, I am not going to support a place like that, and neither does the international community. And you can sit here and point fingers at the rest of the dirtbags in the region, 1 we dont support them, 2 that hatred has been bred out of desperation and asinine policy. The U.S. doesn't even agree with a lot of the shit they do for obvious reasons, and I haven't even mentioned their reactionary bombing campaigns or continuing settlement of land that isn't theirs. The U.S. is the only reason Israel isn't sanctioned by almost everywhere in the world, much less a crater. There is no way to say that having that piece of shit on our side is a good strategy, they contribute absolutely nothing, and have caused us more than enough grief. I have no bleeding heart for that place.

wait, so you're bigoted toward jews and hate israel? i am shocked.

also yes we do support "them", them being other "dirtbags in the region". for fy2011 we gave $30 billion in aid to a composite of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, the West Bank, and Jordan. Israel got $3 billion.

if you think israel is the worst guy on our payroll, you're ignorant. we support whoever furthers american interests and sometimes, that's some pretty nasty people. israel is a lot more defensible than many others.

hypothetical: do you think we wouldn't give assad $5 billion a year to pull loose from iran, put up a guise of civil rights, and support american initiatives? don't kid yourself, we would. he's just not as easily bought

[Stinkum]

wait, so you're bigoted toward jews and hate israel? i am shocked.

how is he a bigot? he made a pretty light-hearted and obvious joke, jesus christ lighten up you uptight doofus

[Stinkum]

and stop saying that pakistan is in the middle east, this is probably the 3rd or 4th post you've said that in this thread. cringeworthy man, pakistan is in south asia, not even remotely close..

or are all brown people the same to you?

[Orruar]

try *to* find out why the above statement is unintentionally hilarious

I meant exactly what I said. They're inherently uncontrollable. A vague locational target does not satisfy any degree of "control" within the context of weapons delivery. Your false dichotomy between "controlled" and utterly random is ridiculous.

Whatever though, you're boring me. Your opinions are flatly illogical and instead of defending them, you're getting offended and throwing out insults

I'll take it that by turning to grammar nazism, you've conceded the argument. Good game, sir.

[aowen]

I do hate Israel, not all of the people in it, but certainly their policies and political officials. And if here you want to define bigotry as hating someone for the opinion that it's ok to kill and oppress people and steal land, yes I am bigoted against that opinion, because it's fucking insane and stupid.

Hmm, I wonder why we would need to give aid to the countries we fucked up? I am sure if you look at the allocation of said aid it would not be equal across the board. A bigger factor would be that what the aid is for. There is a big difference between military aid and the sharing of weapons (Israel), and aid meant for development and feeding people peanut paste. Israel just bought a bunch of choppers etc from us, essentially with our own money. Don't whitewash foreign aid, it makes you sound misinformed. Also, tons of money is funneled to Israel through sources outside the government. Little of this is relevant however, other than you saying we support other countries in the same way we support Israel, which is the stupidest counter-argument I have had the displeasure of hearing.

And to answer your hypothetical, I am sure many would be willing to do something like that. However, do you think I would agree with that decision? Do you think I agree with our funding of Mubarak, Saddam in the 80s, or any of the other crazies we fund?

[Daldolma]

and stop saying that pakistan is in the middle east, this is probably the 3rd or 4th post you've said that in this thread. cringeworthy man, pakistan is in south asia, not even remotely close..

or are all brown people the same to you?

pakistan literally borders afghanistan and iran and is playing a major role in the conflict in afghanistan. clearly a part of the regional landscape even if you want to classify it as South Asia, which isn't inaccurate.

but yeah bordering nation "not even remotely close"

[Daldolma]

I do hate Israel, not all of the people in it, but certainly their policies and political officials. And if here you want to define bigotry as hating someone for the opinion that it's ok to kill and oppress people and steal land, yes I am bigoted against that opinion, because it's fucking insane and stupid.

Hmm, I wonder why we would need to give aid to the countries we fucked up? I am sure if you look at the allocation of said aid it would not be equal across the board. A bigger factor would be that what the aid is for. There is a big difference between military aid and the sharing of weapons (Israel), and aid meant for development and feeding people peanut paste. Israel just bought a bunch of choppers etc from us, essentially with our own money. Don't whitewash foreign aid, it makes you sound misinformed. Also, tons of money is funneled to Israel through sources outside the government. Little of this is relevant however, other than you saying we support other countries in the same way we support Israel, which is the stupidest counter-argument I have had the displeasure of hearing.

And to answer your hypothetical, I am sure many would be willing to do something like that. However, do you think I would agree with that decision? Do you think I agree with our funding of Mubarak, Saddam in the 80s, or any of the other crazies we fund?

in terms of military aid, israel ranks 2nd behind afghanistan, who got $10 billion. israel just under 3. egypt 1.3. and even still, it hardly seems fair to disqualify economic aid when you're talking about "support". the point is that we throw billions at lots of bad guys. whether it's used to subjugate or keep the masses in check, either way it's going toward ugly regimes that do ugly things.

and the alternative is withdrawing support. that might sound good on the surface, but then what? that support is our in. egypt has to at least consider our opinion because they're on the payroll. eliminate that carrot and egypt doesn't disappear, they just stop giving a shit about what america thinks

[aowen]

Hahaha, I just looked down at the breakdown for foreign aid, nonplussed to say the least. Pathetic analysis. Military in Afghanistan and Iraq both got substantial packages for obvious reasons, namely so we can leave. Egypt got military funding (whoopsies now) in 2011 because it was the interim government, the other places primarily got development funding. Israel doesn't have stability problems, it has a dick-in-ass problem. You sound like a Reaganesque General ripper zero-sum realist billiard ball theory concert of europe crazy fuck. Why don't you go genuflect to the trinity of Kenneth Waltz, Hobbes, and Kissinger.

[Daldolma]

I'll take it that by turning to grammar nazism, you've conceded the argument. Good game, sir.

it's not grammar nazism when you're condescendingly recommending precision of language as you make third grade grammatical errors

[Lojik]

eliminate that carrot and egypt doesn't disappear, they just stop giving a shit about what america thinks

Not trying to troll here, but why should they give a shit about what America thinks anyway? Shouldn't they do what's in the best interest of their people?

[Stinkum]

pakistan literally borders afghanistan and iran and is playing a major role in the conflict in afghanistan. clearly a part of the regional landscape even if you want to classify it as South Asia, which isn't inaccurate.

but yeah bordering nation "not even remotely close"

so let me get this straight

because pakistan borders afghanistan (which is also NOT a middle eastern country) and iran is involved in afghanistan makes pakistan a middle eastern country?

this is literally the stupidest single thing i have ever read on this forum

i am cringing for you

[Daldolma]

Not trying to troll here, but why should they give a shit about what America thinks anyway? Shouldn't they do what's in the best interest of their people?

theoretically, of course. but that's obviously not how the world works. "aid" is really just buying influence. in critical regions, we buy as much as we can. israel just more readily sells influence than most of the region

[aowen]

You can totally tell this guy is sold on American exceptionalism, and views us as the metropole of the great empire. Let me point out something, we lost our strongman in Egypt, and while they are in the midst of trying to get their shit together, I can assure you that they don't give a fuck what we think.

Your breakdown of aid is thoughtless. We are trying to setup governments in Afghanistan and Iraq so we dont have to have our own military keep the peace, why you would link our funds towards the two countries we started wars in with another separate one that is holding steady and using it to go against our wishes is a just a testament to your lack of understanding. See, when you fund a country to set something up, or for development, or humanitarian aid, it is different than funding an established government which signifies support for the current status quo. And seeing as 2.99 billion of the 3 billion went to the Israeli military, have a reasonable think about it.

[Daldolma]

so let me get this straight

because pakistan borders afghanistan (which is also NOT a middle eastern country) and iran is involved in afghanistan makes pakistan a middle eastern country?

this is literally the stupidest single thing i have ever read on this forum

i am cringing for you

are you slow? read what i wrote.

it's a bordering country that's playing an obvious role in the regional conflict. yes, it is accurate to call it south asia. and no, it's obviously not geographically a part of the "middle east". the term "greater middle east" was coined for this reason, but it's ultimately irrelevant. the point is that pakistan is an actor in the regional conflict, which has expanded beyond the traditional geographic confines of the middle east

[Lojik]

theoretically, of course. but that's obviously not how the world works. "aid" is really just buying influence. in critical regions, we buy as much as we can. israel just more readily sells influence than most of the region

I feel like in one sense you answered my question, but on the other hand I don't. Maybe I didn't really ask the right way, or I'm not really sure what my question is. I understand that naive notions of countries ruling in entirely in their self-interest are not really true, and that whoever is in charge will make decisions based on their interests or whatever special interests they cater to. But why should we "buy" influence from this country? How does it benefit the people of the United States? Does this make them less anti-Israel? It seems like us sending aid to them is to appease them slightly since we aid another country that regularly antagonizes the rest of the region. I find it hard to believe that if we had no presence at all in the middle east and stayed completely neutral in these conflicts that Egypt would take an anti-American economic policy.

[Stinkum]

o ok so its bordering a country that's playing a role in conflict not located in the ME, therefore it is middle eastern

we got a genius over here

[Daldolma]

You can totally tell this guy is sold on American exceptionalism, and views us as the metropole of the great empire. Let me point out something, we lost our strongman in Egypt, and while they are in the midst of trying to get their shit together, I can assure you that they don't give a fuck what we think.

Your breakdown of aid is thoughtless. We are trying to setup governments in Afghanistan and Iraq so we dont have to have our own military keep the peace, why you would link our funds towards the two countries we started wars in with another separate one that is holding steady and using it to go against our wishes is a just a testament to your lack of understanding. See, when you fund a country to set something up, or for development, or humanitarian aid, it is different than funding an established government which signifies support for the current status quo. And seeing as 2.99 billion of the 3 billion went to the Israeli military, have a reasonable think about it.

if they don't give a fuck about what we think, then why did their islamist, vocally anti-israel new government continue to cooperate with israeli troops and in fact defend the israeli border by mobilizing tanks and military personnel? why did they continue to respect the peace treaty with israel? because money talks and not even anti-israel islamists want to pass up on $1.5 billion in annual aid.

and yeah, i think it's pretty obvious why we gave military support to iraq/afghanistan. i think it's pretty obvious why we gave it to israel, too. i didn't realize the obviousness of our interests was a consideration in discussing our foreign aid. we funded a stable, oppressive government in egypt for a long time. was that support for the status quo? or was it acquiescence to the fact that we can't really change the status quo, but we can buy influence? what worked out better for us? buying mubarak's cooperation or replacing saddam hussein's oppressive regime?

[Daldolma]

I feel like in one sense you answered my question, but on the other hand I don't. Maybe I didn't really ask the right way, or I'm not really sure what my question is. I understand that naive notions of countries ruling in entirely in their self-interest are not really true, and that whoever is in charge will make decisions based on their interests or whatever special interests they cater to. But why should we "buy" influence from this country? How does it benefit the people of the United States? Does this make them less anti-Israel? It seems like us sending aid to them is to appease them slightly since we aid another country that regularly antagonizes the rest of the region. I find it hard to believe that if we had no presence at all in the middle east and stayed completely neutral in these conflicts that Egypt would take an anti-American economic policy.

I'm not sure what Egypt would do if America was totally absent and objective re: the Middle East. I think it's impossible to say. We're so far removed from a time when we didn't have our finger in the middle of it that there's no telling what kind of progress Egypt would have made. We undoubtedly supported a dictator that stunted progress with Mubarak. Assuming the Islamist theme was still prevalent in our absence, I don't find it hard to believe Egypt would still be at least moderately hostile toward the West.

But that's a hypothetical dream world. Reality being what it is, we can't undo what's done. We've been fixing the oil game for 35+ years, and we've propped up indefensibly backward regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, and elsewhere for a long time. And oil is as important or more important now than ever before. Buying influence is the cheapest way we can retain our power and ensure favorable results. Going to war is much more expensive. And backing out entirely would leave us at the mercy of whatever power source filled the vacuum.

[aowen]

False dichotomy, funding may either change or solidify the status quo depending on the situation. Funding mubarak was the same as funding Israel, funding 2 shitheads to garner cooperation. Iraq was a totally different story. Another false dichotomy: you can either buy em or replace em. Don't confuse yourself there, what you just wrote is all sideways fucked.

[Orruar]

it's not grammar nazism when you're condescendingly recommending precision of language as you make third grade grammatical errors

Nah, it's grammar nazism. You had no problem understanding what I was saying, while your imprecise use of words was leading to misunderstanding. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between the two situations.

[Barkingturtle]

Nah, it's grammar nazism.

You guys are just arguing semitics now.

[Daldolma]

Nah, it's grammar nazism. You had no problem understanding what I was saying, while your imprecise use of words was leading to misunderstanding. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference between the two situations.

My use of words was not imprecise. Any misunderstanding came from your inability to comprehend or your lack of experience with the subject. President Nixon referred to biological and chemical weapons as uncontrollable. The UN General Assembly has referred to biological and chemical weapons as indiscriminate and uncontrollable. The Red Cross's IHL refers to chemical and biological weapons as uncontrollable. You're trying to play gotcha with accusations of imprecise language when a) the language was accurate, and b) you can't even express your accusation with precise language.

[Orruar]

My use of words was not imprecise. Any misunderstanding came from your inability to comprehend or your lack of experience with the subject. President Nixon referred to biological and chemical weapons as uncontrollable. The UN General Assembly has referred to biological and chemical weapons as indiscriminate and uncontrollable. The Red Cross's IHL refers to chemical and biological weapons as uncontrollable. You're trying to play gotcha with accusations of imprecise language when a) the language was accurate, and b) you can't even express your accusation with precise language.

Hey, it's Friday and I'm off work now. Time to get some drinks. Don't take yourself too seriously, if that's possible.

[aowen]

Please tell me what bombing campaign has been completely discriminate. Our missile are more precise than chemical weapons sure, but it only takes a quick look at how many civilians were killed in Iraq to know nothing is perfect. Remember when that train was hit by our missile? Human errors cause problems too, such as the CIA having civilian targets on their list, which we wound up blowing up. Oops, our intel was wrong.

The problem is that you are defending our past policies in the middle east, and no one, I mean no one, as much nice shit to say about it. Hindsight is 20/20, errors can be admitted, but to continue down the same path and justify the past is just being blind. You make false presumptions that if we leave there will be some huge power vacuum, because shit could get so much worse there as it is, or that our presence has improved anything. What little knowledge you fail at structuring into a cohesive and coherent argument. You frame the debate all wrong, set up situations where it's us or them, typical ignorant American who has never once thought outside the box. I can already tell you'd be a realist if you ever read any theory, probably the most criticized, austere, dumb, but prevalent perception of how to order world politics. Fail, fail, fail. I suggest you try your hand at something besides IR theory sir Daldolma.

[Daldolma]

What are you even talking about? We've barely discussed past policy at all. This discussion has been almost exclusively about current and future policy, with a brief aside into what got us here.

And where have I said anything even close to our presence improving the Middle East? On the contrary, I suggested we've intentionally stunted progress in the region in order to further our own interests. I've never said us leaving would make the Middle East worse, either. I don't know who you're arguing with, but it isn't me. I haven't said a word one way or the other about what the outcome would be for the Middle East if America left. All I've said is that America leaving would create a power vacuum -- which is fairly obvious. We're a massive power in the region. If we leave, other actors inherit or claim that power. Would it be better for the Middle East? Worse? Who knows? All I've said is that it would be worse for America because the Middle East is vital to its interests and losing power there means losing control over a vital interest.

And lol @ hating on realism. It's the most prevalent theory because it's the only theory that holds water. Hate it all you want, criticize its implications, but it's more or less the way the world works.

[Kagatob]

I'm still pro-Geneva convention. Why must such straightforward concepts be so difficult for people these days?

[aowen]

Actually, constructivism is closer to the way the world works, because it takes a more holistic approach that incorporates normative underpinnings, factors outside of nations (IE trade organizations, businesses, and other entities), allows for net gains rather than solely zero sum, and perhaps most importantly seeks to understand circumstances through a dialectic approach that acknowledges the mutual constitution of most situations rather than framing things within a binary approach. Realism is for retards who can't understand complex frameworks. It attempts to take dynamic and complicated situations and turn them into easy to understand black and white scenarios for the plebs to understand, and it is for anti-intellectual cocksuckers.

You have indeed brought up the past, albeit briefly, when discussing Egypt and foreign aid. Failing to reflect on the past is a grave error. The present is indicative of the past, and the past informs the present. Taking this into account, predictions of the future can be made. Consequently, our perceptions and framing of the past influence our understanding of the present. Not understanding that also makes you a retard.

While we have always had a moderate amount of meddling or 'influence' in the middle east, our increased presence there has not remedied anything, and has by all means worsened the situation. Therefore, by implication, your conclusion espousing a power vacuum is unfounded, as there is hardly anyone organized enough to seize control immediately anyways. Clusterfuck is closer to what those countries look like after a government collapses.

Again, the Middle East was at one time important to us, but we are increasingly drawing our oil from North and South America. Not only is energy independence a top priority, Brazil's new offshore oil supply, one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the world, will takeover as one of the biggest suppliers in the world, and is a country we have always had amicable relations with. Your boner for the middle east is overstated.

And I will quote myself from my first post: The problem with this notion [funding or bombing Syria], at this stage at least, is the failure to consider a) the consequences of support for rebel forces, b) whether it's actually reasonable to expect a short operation, c) whether constituents have the appetite for more war in this region, d) any kind of exit plan once the job, whatever that is, is done. I think the lack of intervention so far can be pinned down to the difficulties in adequately assessing these considerations. This is such a volatile situation that it's very difficult to be sure we won't just make the situation worse in the long-term, or at least end up being culpable in the total collapse of the state.

When I think of foreign policy, I don't only keep America's interests in mind, I keep the interests of people in general in mind.

You sir are stuck about 2 decades behind.

[Lune]

You guys are just arguing semitics now.

you clever son of a bitch

[Daldolma]

Actually, constructivism is closer to the way the world works, because it takes a more holistic approach that incorporates normative underpinnings, factors outside of nations (IE trade organizations, businesses, and other entities), allows for net gains rather than solely zero sum, and perhaps most importantly seeks to understand circumstances through a dialectic approach that acknowledges the mutual constitution of most situations rather than framing things within a binary approach. Realism is for retards who can't understand complex frameworks. It attempts to take dynamic and complicated situations and turn them into easy to understand black and white scenarios for the plebs to understand, and it is for anti-intellectual cocksuckers.

You have indeed brought up the past, albeit briefly, when discussing Egypt and foreign aid. Failing to reflect on the past is a grave error. The present is indicative of the past, and the past informs the present. Taking this into account, predictions of the future can be made. Consequently, our perceptions and framing of the past influence our understanding of the present. Not understanding that also makes you a retard.

While we have always had a moderate amount of meddling or 'influence' in the middle east, our increased presence there has not remedied anything, and has by all means worsened the situation. Therefore, by implication, your conclusion espousing a power vacuum is unfounded, as there is hardly anyone organized enough to seize control immediately anyways. Clusterfuck is closer to what those countries look like after a government collapses.

Again, the Middle East was at one time important to us, but we are increasingly drawing our oil from North and South America. Not only is energy independence a top priority, Brazil's new offshore oil supply, one of the biggest, if not the biggest in the world, will takeover as one of the biggest suppliers in the world, and is a country we have always had amicable relations with. Your boner for the middle east is overstated.

And I will quote myself from my first post: The problem with this notion [funding or bombing Syria], at this stage at least, is the failure to consider a) the consequences of support for rebel forces, b) whether it's actually reasonable to expect a short operation, c) whether constituents have the appetite for more war in this region, d) any kind of exit plan once the job, whatever that is, is done. I think the lack of intervention so far can be pinned down to the difficulties in adequately assessing these considerations. This is such a volatile situation that it's very difficult to be sure we won't just make the situation worse in the long-term, or at least end up being culpable in the total collapse of the state.

When I think of foreign policy, I don't only keep America's interests in mind, I keep the interests of people in general in mind.

You sir are stuck about 2 decades behind.

Jesus, there's so much wrong with the above. I don't think you even understand constructivism, let alone realism. Although props for being maybe the first person in history to call Thucydides an anti-intellectual.

Instead of going point by point which is going to lead to another 500 word essay, I'm going to break this down pretty quickly. Look at the bolded print.

In a nutshell, that's the issue here. Apparently you think policy informed by national self-interest is a thing of the past. As you say that, the US is continuing to pump money into Israel's military, continuing to support an oppressive Saudi Arabian regime, continuing to buy Egypt's cooperation, continuing to prop up our preferred governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and debating whether or not to intervene in a Syrian civil war to aid a rebellion comprised mostly of Islamist jihadists with the stated goal of a nation based on sharia law. Does that sound like we're looking out for Middle Eastern people in general? The US is running the realist playbook. You can hate it: that's fine. I've never once discussed the morality of it. Is it right? Is it wrong? Does it matter? Those are the facts on the ground.

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

[aowen]

Thucydides? You're not decades behind, you're fucking centuries behind. First you need to read the actual relevant classical realists such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Locke. Then continue to their contemporary critics such as Hagel, Rousseau, Marx, etc. Then you need to update yourself because that's all just foundational work and actually read shit that matters. Current realists that might have a smidge of salience are Morgenthau, Mearsheimer, Waltz, Brezezinski, Kissinger, Kennan, and more. Then read people that actually know what their fucking talking about like Habermas, Frost, Foucault, and watch them fucking decimate realists.

You argument is stupid, because you just listed a bunch of facts without any kind of point to them, except that maybe US foreign policy is realist, which is true. It is also true that American FP in the middle east is a sad sack of shit. Perhaps if they had contemplated the morality of their actions, different decisions would have been made. Maybe if ol' GW read a book without pictures he would have known that sometimes taking others interests into consideration is important. Biggest problem with realism=defining what's in your rational self-interest, which it purports to always be a questions with an answer. Wrong, that doesn't even fucking mean anything, and it's the worst type of morality, aka selfishness.

That last statement you made there, the weak suffer what they must. I guess slavery would have gone over great with you, which is why you don't give a shit about 5 million malnourished people living in camps because of Israel. You're a dolt. Thucydides, lmao, fucking retard, you know nothing jon snow.

[Obsidus]

Finally this shit wipe of a thread got interesting!

[aowen]

How does it make sense to evaluate an international situation if you're going to completely ignore the red cross, UN, WTO, OECD, World Bank, IMF, and every single corporation. Because if you know your realism, those are all out the window in their analysis. You can't argue that that is not fucking retarded, seeing as they use them for developing countries all the fucking time.

You can't even grasp the inside of a nation without companies. Oh wait, I forgot, realists don't believe in analysing the endogenous factors, they don't see how maybe the composition of a country might influence its foreign policy.

Realism certainly has its uses, but is dwarfed and under the umbrella of far more comprehensive theories, namely social constructivism. Without looking at how things are legitimized and institutionalized, you cannot comprehend any given situation.

You so clearly epitomize the thinking limited to the confines of realism it's fucking making me want to type with my forehead. You'd be laughed out of a fucking IR circle.

[Estolcles]

The only Hobbes I read is the one where he teams up with Calvin.

[Daldolma]

Thucydides? You're not decades behind, you're fucking centuries behind. First you need to read the actual relevant classical realists such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Locke. Then continue to their contemporary critics such as Hagel, Rousseau, Marx, etc. Then you need to update yourself because that's all just foundational work and actually read shit that matters. Current realists that might have a smidge of salience are Morgenthau, Mearsheimer, Waltz, Brezezinski, Kissinger, Kennan, and more. Then read people that actually know what their fucking talking about like Habermas, Frost, Foucault, and watch them fucking decimate realists.

You argument is stupid, because you just listed a bunch of facts without any kind of point to them, except that maybe US foreign policy is realist, which is true. It is also true that American FP in the middle east is a sad sack of shit. Perhaps if they had contemplated the morality of their actions, different decisions would have been made. Maybe if ol' GW read a book without pictures he would have known that sometimes taking others interests into consideration is important. Biggest problem with realism=defining what's in your rational self-interest, which it purports to always be a questions with an answer. Wrong, that doesn't even fucking mean anything, and it's the worst type of morality, aka selfishness.

That last statement you made there, the weak suffer what they must. I guess slavery would have gone over great with you, which is why you don't give a shit about 5 million malnourished people living in camps because of Israel. You're a dolt. Thucydides, lmao, fucking retard, you know nothing jon snow.

You seem upset.

I'm going to take a moment here to laugh at the names you just dropped. Thanks for running me through the biggest names in political philosophy. Yeah man, I should totally read Machiavelli, Hagel [sic], Marx, and Morgenthau. Where'd you hear about them!? I'm still working on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Great Gatsby, but they're up next! I just heard of this new guy you should totally check out -- Faulkner, I think it was? That guy's a genius! He's going places.

And yeah, unfortunately, my stupid point is true. It's clearly the guiding policy of US foreign policy, and US foreign policy has pretty much shaped the world for the past 65 years. Dang.

And that last statement there, oh paragon of political knowledge, is literally the most famous quote from Thucydides' Melian dialogue. Seeing as how Thucydides is generally regarded as the father of political realism, maybe you should give him a spin.

And for the 6th or 7th time, this isn't a moral opinion. I'm not endorsing the morality of it; I'm commenting on its veracity.

[Stinkum]

daldolma spazzing out pretty hard today

[Daldolma]

Stinkum's Greatest Hits:
In Memory of Cros Treewind
The Top 4 Most Depressing Facts about the Titanium Client
5 Great Reasons to Wipe it Clean
In Defense of the Paladin

[Stinkum]

gr8 threads

[Daldolma]

weird

[susvain0362]

gr8 threads

Cros treewind is legitimate post of the year. It should definately be a nomiee. No way there are 5 posts that top it.

[Stinkum]

thanks man glad you got a kick out of it

[r00t]

https://sphotos-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1004535_162750257264545_1238997708_n.jpg

[Daldolma]

aowen is right.

Daldolma fails to realize that the world is changing. We are still in the early stages of globalization where one country will no longer dictate to the world. When it is all said and done we will be living in a world closer to the vision of Hume and Marx.

lol. worked well last time

also: sept 2013? tryin 2 hard

[Daldolma]

That's because Marxism can't be implemented in its pure form.

[aowen]

You seem upset.

I'm going to take a moment here to laugh at the names you just dropped. Thanks for running me through the biggest names in political philosophy. Yeah man, I should totally read Machiavelli, Hagel [sic], Marx, and Morgenthau. Where'd you hear about them!? I'm still working on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Great Gatsby, but they're up next! I just heard of this new guy you should totally check out -- Faulkner, I think it was? That guy's a genius! He's going places.

And yeah, unfortunately, my stupid point is true. It's clearly the guiding policy of US foreign policy, and US foreign policy has pretty much shaped the world for the past 65 years. Dang.

And that last statement there, oh paragon of political knowledge, is literally the most famous quote from Thucydides' Melian dialogue. Seeing as how Thucydides is generally regarded as the father of political realism, maybe you should give him a spin.

And for the 6th or 7th time, this isn't a moral opinion. I'm not endorsing the morality of it; I'm commenting on its veracity.

Well first, if you had read any of them, I assume you wouldn't sound so ignorant of the theory. If your only goal is to reconcile US FP with realism, that's not too hard. I think it's a pretty pointless thing to do, because everyone agrees US FP is realist. If that's your argument, you've just vomited all over what could be a good debate. The point that carries more salience is whether it is the right choice for foreign policy, and if it allows for a full understanding of the dynamics of the international sphere. Answer: No, it doesn't.

I have given all realists a spin, Thucydides included, that's how I know I disagree with what they posit. However, while Thucydides is good foundational reading, it is also severely dated and unable to address many of the contemporary issues. I like how you completely ignored all of the people I mentioned that are contemporary IR theorists and chose to defer to ones everyone should have read to engage in a debate about IR, but you clearly didn't. On top of that, you clearly haven't read other theories, otherwise you'd know how they differ, and incorporate realism into new theories attempting to better explain and understand IR. Read Ethics in International Relations by Mervyn Frost, or pretty much any essay by Habermas, and you'd realize how far the scope goes outside of realism and shut the fuck up, but I somehow don't think you will.

[aowen]

That's because Marxism can't be implemented in its pure form.

Yes, because people like you exist that don't understand cooperation or the value of other's contributions, you just understand rational self-interest. Das Kapital is one of the best books I have ever read, and after reading it I realized how little people know about what he actually said and wrote. It stands a lot of shit on its head, and it's nearly 100% accurate. Man's a genius hands down. The way in which he describes how labor creates value (capital), workers are exploited, and capital then creates itself are all striking.

[Daldolma]

Well first, if you had read any of them, I assume you wouldn't sound so ignorant of the theory. If your only goal is to reconcile US FP with realism, that's not too hard. I think it's a pretty pointless thing to do, because everyone agrees US FP is realist. If that's your argument, you've just vomited all over what could be a good debate. The point that carries more salience is whether it is the right choice for foreign policy, and if it allows for a full understanding of the dynamics of the international sphere. Answer: No, it doesn't.

I have given all realists a spin, Thucydides included, that's how I know I disagree with what they posit. However, while Thucydides is good foundational reading, it is also severely dated and unable to address many of the contemporary issues. I like how you completely ignored all of the people I mentioned that are contemporary IR theorists and chose to defer to ones everyone should have read to engage in a debate about IR, but you clearly didn't. On top of that, you clearly haven't read other theories, otherwise you'd know how they differ, and incorporate realism into new theories attempting to better explain and understand IR. Read Ethics in International Relations by Mervyn Frost, or pretty much any essay by Habermas, and you'd realize how far the scope goes outside of realism and shut the fuck up, but I somehow don't think you will.

Dude, how do you get off telling me to read more IR theory when a) you just agreed with the entirety of my argument in this conversation, b) you didn't recognize probably the most well-known quote in all of IR theory (and in fact called me a "dolt" when you thought it was my personal opinion), and c) you're continuing to call for an inspection of more modern interpretations of realism when it's wholly irrelevant to the entire point in question (which we apparently agree on).

This discussion was about US policy, not what US policy should be. You are admitting that US policy is realist then lambasting me for saying that US policy is realist. Homeboy, I'm not authoring US foreign policy. The fact that the US operates with a realist view of IR wasn't my call. I'm taking it as it stands and evaluating it based on the rules of the game they're playing. If you want to judge US FP through a constructivist lens, that's phenomenal. More power to you. There are a lot of things the US could learn from constructivism. But that's not the lay of the land right now, and so long as you're criticizing US FP on the basis of constructivist views, you're criticizing it based on goals they're not trying to achieve. You might think reconciliation with Iran would be a better idea, and you might even be right. But that's not what the US is doing right now, so theory yields to practice pretty damn quickly.

So long as the US takes a realist approach to their international relations, I'm going to go ahead and continue to evaluate their FP with that understanding. When they're working toward zero-sum power grabs in the Middle East, I'm not going to bother talking about whether that's a justified goal. I'm just going to evaluate whether or not their policy is going to be effective in bringing about their desired ends, and whether or not their decisions fit in line with their overarching goals.

If you want to talk about how the US should operate, good. Go for it. That's a way more theoretical discussion than I was having. If you think it's more interesting, have it. I don't. US FP has been essentially realist for 60 years now. I'll talk about a shift when there's even the slightest indication that FP is shifting.

[Daldolma]

Yes, because people like you exist that don't understand cooperation or the value of other's contributions, you just understand rational self-interest. Das Kapital is one of the best books I have ever read, and after reading it I realized how little people know about what he actually said and wrote. It stands a lot of shit on its head, and it's nearly 100% accurate. Man's a genius hands down. The way in which he describes how labor creates value (capital), workers are exploited, and capital then creates itself are all striking.

Correct on all counts.

And you can complain about the notion of rational self-interest all you want, but at some point, you should stop to acknowledge that it's the driving motivation for, say, 99% of the planet.

Marx was a genius, though.

[aowen]

Most discussions are about what ought to be done, such as should we bomb Syria. I think you were the one flying solo on simply affirming that the U.S. realist. That's not even something to talk about, unless you problematize the realist policies, whether or not practice actually fits realist understandings, the efficacy of policies, and by implication realism itself, which is what I have been doing. Once again you have obfuscated the important elements of the argument with bullshit, and fail to realize that theory is not yielding to practice, practice is actually disproving the ability of the US to even implement realist policies. Our policies are not zero-sum power grabs which is why we justify it as mutually beneficial. In fact, you could say the US believes its policies to be realist, but they in fact conform more closely to other models. Launching an investigation with different lenses yields far more interesting and accurate results.

Your entire argument has not been about realism though, the realism discussion emerged from your advocacy of US support for Israel. You were justifying US support for Israel; what the US OUGHT to do, so clearly your goal was not limited to simply demonstrating that the support is realist. In fact, you could say that our support for Israel, our war in Iraq, etc are not realist policies at all, and are not in our self interest and are wrought with moral imperatives. For instance, human rights and foreign aid are not within the framework of realism unless they are in our interest to do so, which is often not the case as our economic and military power are not derived from feeding starving Africans, or aiding Syria, a worthless economy and unimportant enemy/ally (as you stated earlier). This would mean US foreign policy is not realist at all times, which is why it is important to discuss what practices actually fit the frameworks of what theories. Without doing that, you will not understand why and how things happen, so if you want to stick with realist interpretations, you will lack a fundamental understanding of why things happen and what the policies actually reflect, the entire point of reading other theories.



Dude, how do you get off telling me to read more IR theory when a) you just agreed with the entirety of my argument in this conversation, b) you didn't recognize probably the most well-known quote in all of IR theory (and in fact called me a "dolt" when you thought it was my personal opinion), and c) you're continuing to call for an inspection of more modern interpretations of realism when it's wholly irrelevant to the entire point in question (which we apparently agree on).

This discussion was about US policy, not what US policy should be. You are admitting that US policy is realist then lambasting me for saying that US policy is realist. Homeboy, I'm not authoring US foreign policy. The fact that the US operates with a realist view of IR wasn't my call. I'm taking it as it stands and evaluating it based on the rules of the game they're playing. If you want to judge US FP through a constructivist lens, that's phenomenal. More power to you. There are a lot of things the US could learn from constructivism. But that's not the lay of the land right now, and so long as you're criticizing US FP on the basis of constructivist views, you're criticizing it based on goals they're not trying to achieve. You might think reconciliation with Iran would be a better idea, and you might even be right. But that's not what the US is doing right now, so theory yields to practice pretty damn quickly.

So long as the US takes a realist approach to their international relations, I'm going to go ahead and continue to evaluate their FP with that understanding. When they're working toward zero-sum power grabs in the Middle East, I'm not going to bother talking about whether that's a justified goal. I'm just going to evaluate whether or not their policy is going to be effective in bringing about their desired ends, and whether or not their decisions fit in line with their overarching goals.

If you want to talk about how the US should operate, good. Go for it. That's a way more theoretical discussion than I was having. If you think it's more interesting, have it. I don't. US FP has been essentially realist for 60 years now. I'll talk about a shift when there's even the slightest indication that FP is shifting.

[Kagatob]

^ just suck each other's dicks already.

[aowen]

^ just suck each other's dicks already.

Did you take a break from anime just to say that?

[Barkingturtle]

Did you take a break from anime just to say that?

Pretty sure he has two monitors.

[aowen]

Pretty sure he has two monitors.

But of course!

[Kagatob]

Pretty sure he has two monitors.

5 at work but I'm posting from my smartphone.

[Daldolma]

Most discussions are about what ought to be done, such as should we bomb Syria. I think you were the one flying solo on simply affirming that the U.S. realist. That's not even something to talk about, unless you problematize the realist policies, whether or not practice actually fits realist understandings, the efficacy of policies, and by implication realism itself, which is what I have been doing. Once again you have obfuscated the important elements of the argument with bullshit, and fail to realize that theory is not yielding to practice, practice is actually disproving the ability of the US to even implement realist policies. Our policies are not zero-sum power grabs which is why we justify it as mutually beneficial. In fact, you could say the US believes its policies to be realist, but they in fact conform more closely to other models. Launching an investigation with different lenses yields far more interesting and accurate results.

Your entire argument has not been about realism though, the realism discussion emerged from your advocacy of US support for Israel. You were justifying US support for Israel; what the US OUGHT to do, so clearly your goal was not limited to simply demonstrating that the support is realist. In fact, you could say that our support for Israel, our war in Iraq, etc are not realist policies at all, and are not in our self interest and are wrought with moral imperatives. For instance, human rights and foreign aid are not within the framework of realism unless they are in our interest to do so, which is often not the case as our economic and military power are not derived from feeding starving Africans, or aiding Syria, a worthless economy and unimportant enemy/ally (as you stated earlier). This would mean US foreign policy is not realist at all times, which is why it is important to discuss what practices actually fit the frameworks of what theories. Without doing that, you will not understand why and how things happen, so if you want to stick with realist interpretations, you will lack a fundamental understanding of why things happen and what the policies actually reflect, the entire point of reading other theories.

I wasn't "simply affirming" that the US is realist. US FP is organized and implemented through a realist interpretation of international politics. It doesn't matter if the policies actually conform to the dictates of realism or not -- the practitioners are engaging in IR through a realist lens. You're talking about evaluating US policy and ultimately theory crafting. I'm talking about viewing the chess board as it's being viewed by the players. You think support for Israel is a mistake, you think stunting progress and supporting oppressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were mistakes, but what you think isn't at play. That's not an insult; I'm just noting that it's academic in nature. Maybe one day US FP will kick realism to the curb and take a more liberal approach to international politics. When that day comes, we can reconsider a variety of our policies. But in the mean time, what's relevant is what the US sees when it inspects its own support for Israel, its own support for backward regimes in the Middle East, its own potential intervention in Syria. And what it sees, it sees in terms of realism.

You're also jumping around. You've admitted multiple times that US FP is realist in nature, but now you seem to be saying the fact that we justify our measures in terms of mutual benefit means it's not. We justified our war in Iraq in terms of bringing democracy to an oppressed people. Do you believe policy-crafters were truly engaged in mutual benefit? Do you believe that war was even 10% about bringing democracy to Iraq? As atrocities were committed daily in Darfur? Of course not. "Mutual benefit" resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and a far less stable Iraqi government. Whether or not we're justifying our methods in terms of mutual benefit, you'd be a fool to accept that explanation at face value. And given the fact that you've already agreed to US FP being realist, I take it you don't.

We both know that US FP is primarily realist. We both see the actions the US is engaging in. I'm reconciling those actions with realist interpretation so as to better understand the reasoning behind US policy, and to inspect whether or not that reasoning is sound GIVEN the US's realist approach. You're criticizing those actions through the lens of liberalism/constructivism and talking about why realism is a bad approach. That's fine. But we're on totally different wavelengths. When I talk about what we "ought" to do (i.e. should we bomb Syria?), it's taking for granted the realist approach of the US. Would or would not action in Syria benefit us if actors conformed to realist principle? Even taking a realist approach for granted, these questions leave room for debate. When you talk about what we ought to do, you're changing the game and wishing the US would change, too.

And there are some decent examples of US FP not conforming entirely to realism, but you didn't pick great ones. The war in Iraq was all about our oil interests, even if it was poorly conceived. We're kicking around the idea of intervention in Syria as an attempt to keep the country destabilized and to prevent Assad from regaining his country -- because he's an important ally to our only rival in the region. Do you seriously think we care about the Syrian civilians or rebels? We're nearly 100k deaths late if we do, and I don't think we're dying to defend the anti-West jihadists making up the core of the rebellion. This isn't a moral cause. I was saying earlier that our foreign aid is primarily about buying influence -- not helping the poor or even necessarily approving of the regime in place. I'm inclined to accept that our African humanitarian aid is less realist in nature, but for the amount of aid we give and the potential value of African natural resources, it is easily justifiable in realist terms, as well.

[aowen]

I wasn't "simply affirming" that the US is realist. US FP is organized and implemented through a realist interpretation of international politics. It doesn't matter if the policies actually conform to the dictates of realism or not -- the practitioners are engaging in IR through a realist lens. You're talking about evaluating US policy and ultimately theory crafting. I'm talking about viewing the chess board as it's being viewed by the players. You think support for Israel is a mistake, you think stunting progress and supporting oppressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were mistakes, but what you think isn't at play. That's not an insult; I'm just noting that it's academic in nature. Maybe one day US FP will kick realism to the curb and take a more liberal approach to international politics. When that day comes, we can reconsider a variety of our policies. But in the mean time, what's relevant is what the US sees when it inspects its own support for Israel, its own support for backward regimes in the Middle East, its own potential intervention in Syria. And what it sees, it sees in terms of realism.


So when evaluating US foreign policy, I am only allowed to critique it within the bounds of what the players are thinking? And yes, let me clarify what I was saying about US realism. The US FP is largely done through what they think is realism, but therein lies the problem. The things that one may believe are done in self-interest and what actually may be are very hard to define, one of the biggest problems with this theory.

I am also confused as to what you're intention is here. You just want to analyze what you think the US will do assuming it is going to attempt to reconcile it with realism or what? You want to have a discussion about what is in US interests? You don't want to touch on what may be wrong with the things they do and the mindsets that cause them? So when I talk about Israel, I need to just say it was at least an attempt at preserving our interests in the Middle East and leave it at that, nothing else can be said?

The only way to break the mold of limited insight and historically bad decisions is to use all the tools at one's disposal, including other theories. I think that reconciling all US actions with realism is a mistake. That is what you said you are trying to do yes? I think it is a mistake because not all of the things are realist, even if done with realist intentions, so why try to force a circle into a square container? The only way to transform a cycle of bad policy and incite change is to open the dialogue to new ideas.

The reason it is important to use other theories is to understand why self-interest is a value, why democracy is viewed as in our interest, why power is defined primarily as wealth and military might. You might just come to figure out that realism's focus on the nation doesn't reflect what interests are actually being served. Throwing it all out because that's not how the players think is tomfoolery. Think for yourself rather than emulating what others say and do.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways -- the point, however, is to change it.

[Kagatob]

I wasn't "simply affirming" that the US is realist. US FP is organized and implemented through a realist interpretation of international politics. It doesn't matter if the policies actually conform to the dictates of realism or not -- the practitioners are engaging in IR through a realist lens. You're talking about evaluating US policy and ultimately theory crafting. I'm talking about viewing the chess board as it's being viewed by the players. You think support for Israel is a mistake, you think stunting progress and supporting oppressive regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were mistakes, but what you think isn't at play. That's not an insult; I'm just noting that it's academic in nature. Maybe one day US FP will kick realism to the curb and take a more liberal approach to international politics. When that day comes, we can reconsider a variety of our policies. But in the mean time, what's relevant is what the US sees when it inspects its own support for Israel, its own support for backward regimes in the Middle East, its own potential intervention in Syria. And what it sees, it sees in terms of realism.

You're also jumping around. You've admitted multiple times that US FP is realist in nature, but now you seem to be saying the fact that we justify our measures in terms of mutual benefit means it's not. We justified our war in Iraq in terms of bringing democracy to an oppressed people. Do you believe policy-crafters were truly engaged in mutual benefit? Do you believe that war was even 10% about bringing democracy to Iraq? As atrocities were committed daily in Darfur? Of course not. "Mutual benefit" resulted in hundreds of thousands dead and a far less stable Iraqi government. Whether or not we're justifying our methods in terms of mutual benefit, you'd be a fool to accept that explanation at face value. And given the fact that you've already agreed to US FP being realist, I take it you don't.

We both know that US FP is primarily realist. We both see the actions the US is engaging in. I'm reconciling those actions with realist interpretation so as to better understand the reasoning behind US policy, and to inspect whether or not that reasoning is sound GIVEN the US's realist approach. You're criticizing those actions through the lens of liberalism/constructivism and talking about why realism is a bad approach. That's fine. But we're on totally different wavelengths. When I talk about what we "ought" to do (i.e. should we bomb Syria?), it's taking for granted the realist approach of the US. Would or would not action in Syria benefit us if actors conformed to realist principle? Even taking a realist approach for granted, these questions leave room for debate. When you talk about what we ought to do, you're changing the game and wishing the US would change, too.

And there are some decent examples of US FP not conforming entirely to realism, but you didn't pick great ones. The war in Iraq was all about our oil interests, even if it was poorly conceived. We're kicking around the idea of intervention in Syria as an attempt to keep the country destabilized and to prevent Assad from regaining his country -- because he's an important ally to our only rival in the region. Do you seriously think we care about the Syrian civilians or rebels? We're nearly 100k deaths late if we do, and I don't think we're dying to defend the anti-West jihadists making up the core of the rebellion. This isn't a moral cause. I was saying earlier that our foreign aid is primarily about buying influence -- not helping the poor or even necessarily approving of the regime in place. I'm inclined to accept that our African humanitarian aid is less realist in nature, but for the amount of aid we give and the potential value of African natural resources, it is easily justifiable in realist terms, as well.

Can you two take the sophomore college level geo-political debate to PMs already?
Nobody else cares and neither of you are going to change a damn thing from your respective basements.

[Daldolma]

So when evaluating US foreign policy, I am only allowed to critique it within the bounds of what the players are thinking? And yes, let me clarify what I was saying about US realism. The US FP is largely done through what they think is realism, but therein lies the problem. The things that one may believe are done in self-interest and what actually may be are very hard to define, one of the biggest problems with this theory.

I am also confused as to what you're intention is here. You just want to analyze what you think the US will do assuming it is going to attempt to reconcile it with realism or what? You want to have a discussion about what is in US interests? You don't want to touch on what may be wrong with the things they do and the mindsets that cause them? So when I talk about Israel, I need to just say it was at least an attempt at preserving our interests in the Middle East and leave it at that, nothing else can be said?

The only way to break the mold of limited insight and historically bad decisions is to use all the tools at one's disposal, including other theories. I think that reconciling all US actions with realism is a mistake. That is what you said you are trying to do yes? I think it is a mistake because not all of the things are realist, even if done with realist intentions, so why try to force a circle into a square container? The only way to transform a cycle of bad policy and incite change is to open the dialogue to new ideas.

The reason it is important to use other theories is to understand why self-interest is a value, why democracy is viewed as in our interest, why power is defined primarily as wealth and military might. You might just come to figure out that realism's focus on the nation doesn't reflect what interests are actually being served. Throwing it all out because that's not how the players think is tomfoolery. Think for yourself rather than emulating what others say and do.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways -- the point, however, is to change it.

Okay, we've finally gotten to the core of our disagreement. Because there is no real disagreement anymore. In terms of personal preference and ideology, I agree with you. Or at least, I agree with your approach. I don't think we would agree on the specifics, but obviously realism isn't the be all and end all of competent decision making. I agree that other approaches are informative in understanding international relations and potentially improving them.

I just don't evaluate US policy in those terms because I don't think it's fruitful. It's more of a philosophical discussion than a prospective analysis. US policy is based on a realist interpretation and has been for as long as I've been alive. I find it easier to understand and anticipate US policy by discussing it in those terms. If I were elected to federal government, I'd be much more inclined to discuss the ways a realist approach could be improved.

[Daldolma]

Can you two take the sophomore college level geo-political debate to PMs already?
Nobody else cares and neither of you are going to change a damn thing from your respective basements.

are you being ironic troy?

[aowen]

Lol, like Kagatob made it to sophomore year in college.

[Kagatob]

are you being ironic?

Considering I've never resided in a dwelling that has had a basement... no.


Also for the lulz. http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/september2013/020913join5.jpg

[Ahldagor]

Considering I've never resided in a dwelling that has had a basement... no.


Also for the lulz. http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/september2013/020913join5.jpg

lulz cause he has no choice in the matter? agreed if so.

[Kagatob]

lulz cause he has no choice in the matter? agreed if so.

Combination of that, the fact that these "brave men" feel the need to hide their faces, and the fact that they are under a lot of impressions that are outright false.

[Ahldagor]

Combination of that, the fact that these "brave men" feel the need to hide their faces, and the fact that they are under a lot of impressions that are outright false.

i agree with the guy's statement, but he doesn't have a choice about deployment. there's mixed reports coming out about who used what, but there's no need for the u.s. to get involved. there's no moral high ground or closely objective ethic in play that justifies getting involved in syria, but it's all politics and we gotta have an enemy in the future.

[Kagatob]

The whole situation is disgusting no matter what direction you look at it from.

[Orruar]

Combination of that, the fact that these "brave men" feel the need to hide their faces, and the fact that they are under a lot of impressions that are outright false.

You do realize that military members can face dishonorable discharge if they make political statements while in uniform? They hide their faces to deal with a completely absurd restriction on their free speech. I'm sure you would have known that if they had made a cartoon about it.

[Kagatob]

You do realize that military members can face dishonorable discharge if they make political statements while in uniform? They hide their faces to deal with a completely absurd restriction on their free speech. I'm sure you would have known that if they had made a cartoon about it.

http://hogewash.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tank-man.jpg
Would never happen in Amurika. :cool:

[Lune]

Can you imagine how shitty our military would be if it were liberalized and they cared what soldiers thought?

"Private Gomez, charge that machine gun nest!"

"I disagree sarge, instead I'm going to stand here and stage a protest."

You waive your rights to free speech when you sign up to die for cash

[Orruar]

Would never happen in Amurika. :cool:

Not sure what that picture has to do with anything. But what I said does indeed happen in America. Google Sergeant Gary Stein if you really haven't heard about this before. I'm not taking sides on whether it's right or wrong, but I'm saying that military members hiding their faces while criticizing the current president is not due to lack of bravery, but rather lack of economic suicidal tendencies.

[Kagatob]

Thank you for ironing in my point that because Amurikans are cowardly to the point where they'd hide their faces because of the fear of economic repercussions that there's no chance in hell anyone in this damn country would ever stand in front of a tank in protest.

[Orruar]

Can you imagine how shitty our military would be if it were liberalized and they cared what soldiers thought?

"Private Gomez, charge that machine gun nest!"

"I disagree sarge, instead I'm going to stand here and stage a protest."

You waive your rights to free speech when you sign up to die for cash

Are you serious? I don't think a single soldier has ever staged a protest in the heat of battle, or even while deployed. The debate on soldier free speech is pretty much limited to their rights while back in the states between deployments.

[Orruar]

Thank you for ironing in my point that because Amurikans are cowardly to the point where they'd hide their faces because of the fear of economic repercussions that there's no chance in hell anyone in this damn country would ever stand in front of a tank in protest.

I see what the purpose of the picture is now. It wasn't clear because the point you're trying to make is an entirely retarded one. Maybe in the world of anime, an impoverished farmer with nothing to lose protesting a communist regime that just murdered thousands of it's own people is the same thing as a solider with a lot to lose protesting a democratic regime. I just don't see it though.

[Orruar]

You know what. You're right, anime-fag. You have to kill yourself during protest or else you're just a coward. So even that guy in front of the tanks was a fucking coward. Here the only way you can protest without being a complete pussy.

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/OuSHA0OKEkc/hqdefault.jpg

If you disagree, I suggest you protest my position. Gas prices are up due to Syria, but hopefully someone who spends their life watching cartoons can still afford it. If not, I'll let you siphon some out of my gas tank.

[Kagatob]

^ point proven ;)

Amurika the land of do little and achieve nothing in the name of first world problems.

hold onto that sentiment if your family gets gassed in the future and the rest of the world decides it's not their problem because your government created the Al Qaeda these soldiers are "bravely" "protesting" against while others families are getting gassed.

[Kagatob]

Also has prices went down where I live so...

[Kagatob]

Well also just ignore the asinine ad hominem that is only serving to detract from the subject. Sorry in advance, we know it's the crux of your argument.

[Orruar]

^ point proven ;)

Amurika the land of do little and achieve nothing in the name of first world problems.

hold onto that sentiment if your family gets gassed in the future and the rest of the world decides it's not their problem because your government created the Al Qaeda these soldiers are "bravely" "protesting" against while others families are getting gassed.

Perhaps you can reword that run-on sentence into something with enough structure to follow. Cartoons have rotted your brain.

[Vadd]

Thank you for ironing in my point that because Amurikans are cowardly to the point where they'd hide their faces because of the fear of economic repercussions that there's no chance in hell anyone in this damn country would ever stand in front of a tank in protest.

Yeah right, bro. I love freedom, I love my friends, I love my family. I love them to the point that I'd readily do whatever I have to in order to protect them. Just cause YOU ain't got the nuts....

[Kagatob]

Adhominem garbage post.

Through with you now.

[Kagatob]

Yeah right, bro. I love freedom, I love my friends, I love my family. I love them to the point that I'd readily do whatever I have to in order to protect them.

Pix or it didn't happen.

[Orruar]

Through with you now.

lol, you must have re-read your sentence and realized just how terrible it was. It had no real point, though parts of it seemed to contain pretty much every logical fallacy known to man. I'd submit it to Guinness if I were you. It could be a record setter.

[Sidelle]

Pretty dumb to even argue about all this. Hippies gonna hate (though I wish they would just elect to move somewhere else in the world and GTFO with their American-hating-hypocritical BS)... what can ya do?

[Kagatob]

Pretty dumb to even argue about all this. Hippies gonna hate (though I wish they would just elect to move somewhere else in the world and GTFO with their American-hating-hypocritical BS)... what can ya do?

Which side would you label as "hippies"? the ones in uniform refusing deployment or the ones who want to go out and kick ass in the name of human rights in memory of the Geneva convention and everything that was sacrificed to get there?

[Sidelle]

Which side would you label as "hippies"? the ones in uniform refusing deployment or the ones who want to go out and kick ass in the name of human rights in memory of the Geneva convention and everything that was sacrificed to get there?

I am referring to people who openly hate America, but sit here on their fat asses enjoying all the benefits of being American. GTFO and go do something then, if you want to be against America. Just leave. Maybe there is a better word about these people? Help me out here, then.

I had a bunch more typed out but it was tl;dr. It's dumb to argue here about it.