Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[martinuzz]

I just cannot imagine a situation where the UN sending troops to quell an insurgency against a dictator would make sense.

You have to remember that before the Arab spring thing started, Assad was The Cuddly Mister Nice Westernish Dictator, according to our politicologists and celebrity magazines. They loved him (and his wife) for being well-spoken, praised him for his Oxford education and sang halleluja about his relatively modern and Western approach to running his country.
Even though when the Arab spring started, most of our analists were manically optimistic, thinking that finally democracy would spread in the Arab world, and helping Libya get rid of evil old Kadhaffi made perfect sense in that light, helping Syrians get rid of Assad, even at that time, wasn't top priority, if not unthinkable.

We are however paying the price of non-intervention: IS wouldnt be such a threat if the Americans had managed to stay in Iraq after 2011. IS wouldnt be such an issue if Western support had toppled Assad relatively quickly like in Libya.

That's wishful thinking though. For all we know it could also have turned the place into a second Jemen, and it's civilians would now be bombed by the Saudi coalition instead of by Assad.

[Sheb]

I for one dont remember anyone praising Assad as the Mister Nice Dictator. The Assad clan was known to be ruthless (In the 1980s, between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians died in the siege of Hama), and his alignment with Russia and Iran, and the shenanigan he pulled in Lebanon didnt endear it to the West.

People however did consider Syria pretty stable and didnt expect the uprising to reach that kind of proportions. The reasons for the lack of Western support had more to do with shyness and a more difficult political situation (Libya didnt host a russian naval base) than a liking for Assad.

[Helgoland]

Also, how is the stance of gossip magazines relevant in any way to our discussion? I don't give a flying fuck if some journalist liked Assad back in 200X - I wasn't even allowed to buy beer back then*. Why should some idiot's year-old opinion have any relevance for my own stance? Just because that idiot had the same skin color as me, or spoke the same language, or held the same passport?

Also I'd like to remark that there's a world of difference between the Saudi bombardments in Yemen and the Assad bombardments in Syria.

*In Germany, so this means I was very, very young.

[martinuzz]

Also, how is the stance of gossip magazines relevant in any way to our discussion?

No idea, I don't read gossip magazines. Perhaps the word celebrity made you assume I meant those media. Best example that springs to mind is an interview / article that Vogue did on Assad's wife. Vogue is a rather influential magazine amongst businessmen and entrepreneurs. If Vogue writes an article complimenting Assad and his wife, entrepreneurs will think it's safer to invest in (Assad-friendly) companies in Syria. Which means more economic interests that way. Which means political lobbying against de-throning him in the buisiness' countries of origin. Perhaps the effect is minor, but it is still relevant.

I don't give a flying fuck if some journalist liked Assad back in 200X - I wasn't even allowed to buy beer back then*. Why should some idiot's year-old opinion have any relevance for my own stance?

Why would your personal stance on the matter be relevant to the entirety of this topic or even determine which information is relevant or not?

Just because that idiot had the same skin color as me, or spoke the same language, or held the same passport?

Erm, wut?

*In Germany, so this means I was very, very young.

How is this in any way relevant to the discussion?

[ChairmanPoo]

Its not like Lybia turned out very good either

[Helgoland]

Much better than Syria though.

-snip-

Maybe my bite reflex was too quick here, but what you say strongly reminds me of the age-old fallacy 'The West fucked up in the past, so you personally can't in good conscience advocate intervention.'
Just because my government - or some government of people with roughly the same culture as me - fucked up interventions in the past I can't advocate interventions now? Just because people similar to me took military action, or supported dictators, or did whatever else for less-than-honorable reasons way, way before I became old enough to develop a political conscience, I can't call these actions a mistake today and insist we do it better this time around?

What other people did in the past is irrelevant for what I say today. Bush fucked up Iraq? That was Bush's mistake. I certainly won't walk in sackcloth and ashes because some guy an ocean away started a war because of daddy issues back when I had just left kindergarten. Celebrity - or gossip, or whatever - magazines liked Assad? Their mistake. How is that relevant for our discussion?

[Sheb]

I think martinuzz point was slightly different: "Because of the way Assad was seen back then, intervention against him was not politically feasible". An opinion I do not share by the way.

[Helgoland]

Yeah, I think I went off-target there. And yeah, there was plenty of talk about a no-fly zone, arming the opposition, etc etc. Hell, the whole CW thing was back in 2013!

Huh, that makes me think: Do you guys think I'd be wrong in claiming that one of Russia's great strengths is using the West's reverence/lip service for international law as a weapon against it?

[Zangi]

Another way to put it, the doors are never closed for a peaceful conclusion.  Its just one side now outright refuses to based on things, like the morale/ethical high road.  While the other side doesn't want to be tried under the high road's judicial system.

Current Diplomatic Options: Take it all or let it drag on...

[Culise]

Another way to put it, the doors are never closed for a peaceful conclusion.  Its just one side now outright refuses to based on things, like the morale/ethical high road.  While the other side doesn't want to be tried under the high road's judicial system.

Current Diplomatic Options: Take it all or let it drag on...

Well, yeah, based on things like "moral high ground."  Or in this case, based on things like "wanting to live."  Even if both Russia and the West declared a pox on both their houses (or all their houses, given the proliferation of sides in the Syrian war), there's indeed absolutely no reason for any side in the Syria issue to immediately come to a peaceful conclusion, much less all of them, and they're the ones actually fighting here, not Russia or the West (though in the case of Russia, that is starting to change a little bit).  If nothing else, the rebels want to visit punishment on Assad and his supporters for his crimes, and Assad on the rebels for theirs, and in both cases said punishment is likely to be very permanent in nature, so to speak.  Certainly, there are plenty of roads to a peaceful conclusion - the entirety of one side or another could surrender wholesale.  It's just that when the consequences of said peaceful conclusion are too unpalatable, it's perfectly understandable why that would be rejected. 

[Graknorke]

Corbyn is pissing off all the right people. First it was feminists and now nationalists.
I have no idea where if anywhere he's going with this, but it's going to be good however things end up. Enough salt will be created to supply the marmite industry for years.

[notquitethere]

I find it boring that the media is incessantly focused on really insignificant elements of Corbyn's ascendancy. The news cycle is dross and we are all better people when we ignore it.

[mainiac]

I have no idea where if anywhere he's going with this,

Britain's got talent most likely.  Saving those vocal chords for the big night.

[Graknorke]

I find it boring that the media is incessantly focused on really insignificant elements of Corbyn's ascendancy. The news cycle is dross and we are all better people when we ignore it.

It's that they're so obsessive over him that's the great thing. Clearly he's playing the game somewhat right to get The Media™ inflamed like that.

[Sergarr]

I find it boring that the media is incessantly focused on really insignificant elements of Corbyn's ascendancy. The news cycle is dross and we are all better people when we ignore it.

It's that they're so obsessive over him that's the great thing. Clearly he's playing the game somewhat right to get The Media™ inflamed like that.

Counter-example: Trump?