Print

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

[Helgoland]

Because in hindsight the issue with Libya was the lack of regime change and bombing of government forces.

Are you really prepared to argue that the alternative would've been better?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Because in hindsight the issue with Libya was the lack of regime change and bombing of government forces.

Are you really prepared to argue that the alternative would've been better?

In terms of GDP, HDI, or general warzone qualities?

Because Muammar's Libya was superior in all those terms. He even built the world's largest man-made aqueduct for the people he was "dictator" of to have running water. I'd rather not get into my bad guy vs your bad guy comparison for a number of reasons, but Assad's Syria isn't throwing gay people off buildings, that's Saudi Arabia, a "peaceful" "ally" of ours, which is exporting it's virtuous visionary culture to the other Muslim diaspora.

It's almost as if going in and fucking up the status quo chasing a utopian ideal of democracy and egalitarianism for all in every land doesn't jive with reality and instead results in power vaccums that are filled by the worst actors.

[Helgoland]

Ah, but the war was already going on when the intervention was discussed. So let me be a bit more precise:

Are you prepared to argue that a Libya without a Western intervention would definitely not have struggled with a long and drawn-out insurgency, strengthening Islamist factions and destroying the country's future much like what happened in Syria?

[PTTG??]

For the record, I am for action in Syria.....if Obama had said "Alright, we don't want to do this but we have no choice for the sake of the Syrian people" I'd have been like "*sigh* alright, let's do this." Because I had faith Obama would weigh the pro's and con's of the situation and the decision to act would come from true necessity and a lack of better options.

I don't have that confidence with Trump, and I'd rather not have him at the head of the next potential world war.

I don't have your confidence. I'd be furious at Obama for getting us involved in annother pointless quagmire. Trump's still worse because he's nakedly trying to start a war to drum up support.

[nenjin]

I'm torn. On the one hand we cannot solve the world's problems by ourselves. Someone is always going to be brutally oppressing their own people, somewhere. On the other though, if no one will step up to end said oppression and we have both the power and the capability to do so....what does it say about America if we do nothing?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

For me it is a practical matter. We're, depending upon your view of power, either the sole superpower or first among all the great powers. This means that we are inevitably involved in all fronts, the entire world is our sphere of interest. If we don't meddle it's just ceding that much more ground to Russia, nothing more.

Maintaining absolute American hegemony is the most effective way for us to inhibit oppression because it ensures stability, and trends of social improvement follow stability. We essentially have a choice between Russia and China for partnership, a choice which already seems to have been made in China's favor. Syria is so messy because it's a borderline between American and Russian interests, and only by pushing Russia out can we eliminate this clash. For us to pull out ourselves would only bring the borderline to more nations as Russia seeks ascendancy.

[martinuzz]

Syrian Human Rights Observatory reports Syrian planes are taking off again from the attacked airport, and flying missions over Homs.
According the Russian Ministry of Defense, only 23 out of 59 missiles hit their targets. Several buildings and one radar installation was destroyed, as well as six old Mig-23 fighters that were stationed in a hangar for repairs.
No runways or taxiways were (seriously) damaged. None of the 33 parked Su-22s were hit, nor were the couple of parked Su-24s. Eleven out of forty hangars were destroyed. Of those eleven, 7 were supposedly empty.

What if this was just a false flag, with Putin's full knowledge and approval, to divert attention from accusations of Trump and staff being Russian puppets.. Note that the Kremlin has put the blame on the old military establishment (leftover from the Obama administration), and not on Trump.

Sidenote, at 1.6 million per missile, the attack cost nearly 100 million dollars in munitions alone.

[Playergamer]

False flag seems very unlikely. It's much more likely that Trump was just trying to go for a pretty show of fireworks, and didn't want to actually do serious damage.

[Helgoland]

and trends of social improvement follow stability.

The development of the Middle East over the past half-century are a rather nice counterexample, don't you think? Stability is a necessary, but by far not a sufficient condition for lasting social improvement.

[Lord Shonus]

A Tomahawk is not an effective weapon for destroying runways - to do real damage you need a ground-penetrating bomb that bursts under the runway and causes huge buckling, and a Tomahawk can't do that. The runway being quickly repaired is pretty much a given.

It is important, however, to note that the whole "only 23 missiles hit" thing and the damage assessment is based entirely on Russian sources. A source with a huge vested interest in making the US look impotent.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

and trends of social improvement follow stability.

The development of the Middle East over the past half-century are a rather nice counterexample, don't you think? Stability is a necessary, but by far not a sufficient condition for lasting social improvement.

I hardly see what you mean. Interventions in the Middle East almost universally increased extremism while the arguably best trend, that of secular Arab nationalism, was most advanced when the region was relatively ignored by the US and USSR. Most nations that do horrible things to their people do so out of a fear of instability, see the difference of Mao's China vs modern China.

[martinuzz]

The aircrafts taking off again and flying missions over Homs though is not from Russian source.

[Lord Shonus]

That's not really part of the damage assessment. The base could have been bombed back to the Stone Age and already  be operating jets again - that's just the nature of runways.

[Dunamisdeos]

The UK has gone on record saying that it was intended as a deterrent to future chemical actions, not to destroy their ability to make war/combat the rebels.

They were even advised of it beforehand. I feel like they probably wouldn't have been on board with a false flag operation, and that they wouldn't have shown post-strike support if it hadn't have the intended effect.

[Frumple]

Yeaaahh, that's the current UK, though. They may be somewhat more likely than major nations already are to chest beat or support that sort of aggression, even if they weren't particularly on board ahead of time. Current government leaders also aren't known for being entirely aligned with the concept of honesty, too.

It's also worth noting some of the reported "advised ahead of time" involved a warning period measured in hours that could have easily been single digit. Canada noted they were briefed thursday night, ferex -- and so far as I can recall, so far as timezones over here goes, that's also when the attack happened. If the mentioned brief was actually the first communication, they had less than twelve hours at the most to respond. There's support coming out now, but if there would have been -- especially for the method used -- had there actually been meaningful time to respond, well... that's a different question.