Print

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

Until I figure out how to un-close it, at least.

0 (0%)

So yeah.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

Voting closed: May 01, 2014, 02:06:40 pm

[Sheb]

No, the red line was he not using them. He used them, and the only penalty was giving them away afterward.

[vagel7]

This is kind of like how the Allies treated Hitler at the beginning. They kept giving him more and more, hoping that he would just get whatever he wants and let everybody live in peace. We all know how that worked out.

[LordSlowpoke]

please, if you want to compare putin to hitler go the extra mile and say the west fucked up in the 90s and recreated versailles like a certain wise poster did a while back and i'm saying a certain wise poster because i honest to armok don't remember who exactly that poster was

[mainiac]

No, the red line was he not using them. He used them, and the only penalty was giving them away afterward.

Diplomacy isn't dog obedience training.  You don't smack them on the nose until they accept that you are the alpha.

I think Ukrainian Ranger will be very comforted by the next round of ultimatums as he watches the Eastern part of his country collapse into chaos.

If this level of violence means eastern Ukraine is in "chaos" then so are many american cities including the town I lived in last year (and moved from due to completely non-violence related reasons).  Don't be so emotional about it and look at the situation logically.  Is there political violence in Ukraine?  Yes.  Is that violence enough to destabilize the country?  Absolutely not.

The desire is always there to act, to do something.  It's easier to see what is happening then to consider the counterfactuals.  But more active american participation would certainly bring blowback.  The criticism right now is that the government is a client state of the west.  The goal is to show that is wrong not to show it's right.  The world just showed us the follow of cowboy diplomacy in Iraq, maybe that should give you some appreciation for the virtue of restraint.

This is kind of like how the Allies treated Hitler at the beginning. They kept giving him more and more, hoping that he would just get whatever he wants and let everybody live in peace. We all know how that worked out.

Hey remember that part in WWII where France, Russia and Poland were all allied from 1932 onward, shared a land border, were closer to each other then Germany and had a joint military command?  Remember the part where Nazi Germany had no allies?  Remember the part where their military was outnumbered 7-1?

[Owlbread]

It does infuriate me when certain pro-Russians will make that criticism that Ukraine is a client state of "the West" when this entire conflict sprang up when there was significant popular opposition to becoming a client state of "the East".

[RedKing]

As for McCain, I have to kind of agree with him. Obama has demonstrated a bad habit of drawing lines in the sand when we really can't enforce them. We drew a line with Assad and did what exactly?

We insisted on him giving up his chemical weapons and he gave up his chemical weapons.

Diplomacy isn't dog obedience training.  You don't smack them on the nose until they accept that you are the alpha.

Correction: He stated that he would give up his chemical weapons and then chemical weapons were used two months later. And now, nearly a year later, they're mostly disposed of. I'll agree that it was a partial victory, but it's also an agreement that makes tactical sense for Assad. He has the upper hand in conventional forces. If chemical weapons fell into rebel hands, it could swing the strategic calculus against him. This removes a potential threat to Syrian state forces and earns him brownie points at the same time.

And no, it isn't dog obedience training. But it is somewhat like dealing with children. If you make lots of threats and then never carry through with them even when the rules are breached, eventually not only is that child going to ignore your threats, but so are the other children watching.

I know that sounds incredibly paternalistic and condescending, but the gist is the same. And no, the answer is not to beat your children constantly, it's to reserve your ultimatums for the cases where they're truly needed and where you are prepared to enforce the ultimatum. It's the old adage, "Don't let your mouth write a check your body can't cash."

The White House and the State Department have been writing checks that I just don't think Americans are willing to cash. Public support for any kind of military intervention in Ukraine is very low.

[mainiac]

Correction: He stated that he would give up his chemical weapons and then chemical weapons were used two months later. And now, nearly a year later, they're mostly disposed of. I'll agree that it was a partial victory, but it's also an agreement that makes tactical sense for Assad. He has the upper hand in conventional forces. If chemical weapons fell into rebel hands, it could swing the strategic calculus against him. This removes a potential threat to Syrian state forces and earns him brownie points at the same time.

Yeah, it sucks man, that's real politik for ya.

[Sheb]

Yeah, neither me nor RedKing are arguing that America not bombing stuff is bad. But you shouldn't threaten consequences if you don't deliver.

[RedKing]

I guess my point then is that many other heads of state in the world are far better at playing the realpolitik game than the President.

I'm conflicted on that. On the one hand, it means we get played like a fiddle in a lot of regional conflicts (especially in Central Asia). On the other hand, I don't know that I *want* another Nixon/Kissinger-type Presidency. It's a bit like Churchhill -- when times are perilous, you want a brass-balled bastard like that in charge. The rest of the time, not so much.

One real potential threat from all this is that if other actors on the world stage assume that the US won't actually back up their ultimatums and then we get into a situation where we HAVE to, and somebody makes a grave miscalculation. Like invading Taiwan. Or the Baltics.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

@Redking
We haven't been writing any checks dude. They've been intentionally vague- what we're doing is waving our checkbook around.
The checks we have written? We've backed up. Sanctions & kicking putin out of the g8 among other things. What particular bounced checks are we talking about? Biden and his political posturing? That's not a check, that's posturing, sent out on the airwaves for public consumption to frame the conflict as "putin's not complying".
And I suppose getting Syria to dispose of it's chemical weapons was a bad use of America's political capital? I wonder what we'd have started seeing if we hadn't done that, and I wonder who would be blamed for it. Hmm.

[Sheb]

Not punishing Assad for the use of his chemical weapons was clearly refusing to cash a check written before.

[10ebbor10]

No, the red line was he not using them. He used them, and the only penalty was giving them away afterward.

Was that actually proven. I mean, we know Chemical weaponry was used, but we still don't know which side did it, IIRC.

[Sheb]

We know rockets of a type used by the regime coming from the direction of a regime's presidential guard base was carrying gas of a kind used by the regime. Granted, we don't actually know they're the one who did it.

[RedKing]

Fair enough. Although the impact of economic measures aren't readily apparent. And let's face it, getting kicked out of the G8 (or the G7+1, as it was frequently known) is purely a prestige thing. It's like being booted off a UN Committee.

And see the previous discussion regarding the Syrian chemical weapons. I'm not saying it was a bad thing, but it was something that was in his own best interest anyways. And he still used them before giving them up.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

No, the red line was he not using them. He used them, and the only penalty was giving them away afterward.

Was that actually proven. I mean, we know Chemical weaponry was used, but we still don't know which side did it, IIRC.

A wee bit of googling later, there was a much larger attack after the more questionable one. Killed hundreds to 1000+.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack