So... I guess we should stop and give up? Just stick our fingers in our ears and let the East do what it will? Would you prefer that? It sucks. It's terrible. We all know it, too, those of us that pay attention to the news. It's not like we all have our hearts cryogenically frozen, like you seem to think we do.
If this was a war, with designated theaters of activity, it would be easier. That is not the case. The people who actively want to murder a ton of people for no rational reason are hiding in places you can't hit without civilian casualties. Not without marching troops in, resulting in more civilian casualties.
I wish there was a clear course of action here. But as it stands, we could either get involved, or not get involved. Those are the options. But if we stop taking action, people will complain about us not taking action. We're hated either way. I guess our leadership decided if other nations are going to see us as villains equally for helping to deal with ISIS or for staying away altogether, we might as well help since they're a threat to us too.
The civilized west strikes again!
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
•
31 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#21 
by Zadocfish2 » Oct 01, 2014 10:33 am
User formerly known as Falconjudge.
I am a Christian.
I am a Christian.
-
Zadocfish2 - Name: Justin
- Posts: 608
- Age: 32
- Country: USA
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#22 by tuco » Oct 01, 2014 11:05 am
What the 60-plus members of the anti-Islamic State coalition are doing
[snip]
In his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday morning, President Obama said, “Already, over 40 nations have offered to join this coalition.”
But on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said more than 50 nations have agreed to join the coalition. And in a document released by the State Department on Tuesday, 62 nations (including the European Union and the Arab League) are listed as providing support to the U.S.-led coalition.
[snip]
Arab League: Released several statements urging its members to confront the Islamic State “militarily and politically.” Foreign ministers from all of the member states have agreed to take “all necessary measures to confront the Islamic State.”
[snip]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... re-doing/#
[snip]
In his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday morning, President Obama said, “Already, over 40 nations have offered to join this coalition.”
But on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said more than 50 nations have agreed to join the coalition. And in a document released by the State Department on Tuesday, 62 nations (including the European Union and the Arab League) are listed as providing support to the U.S.-led coalition.
[snip]
Arab League: Released several statements urging its members to confront the Islamic State “militarily and politically.” Foreign ministers from all of the member states have agreed to take “all necessary measures to confront the Islamic State.”
[snip]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... re-doing/#
- tuco
- Posts: 16040
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#23 by Arjan Dirkse » Oct 01, 2014 4:44 pm
mrjonno wrote:I personally think Assad should have been remove and if we had done it in the right way there would be no ISIS, but that said 1 British or American soldier or civilian is seen to be worth more than a 1000 dead foreign children.
That's the reality that look after foreign people is a hard sell in a democracy, getting vengeance for your own is a lot easier
ISIS has been around for a long time, it grew out of the group headed by A-Zarqawi named Jama'at al Tawhid wal Jihad. They only got really big recently because of the coincidence that there is a power vacuum in two neighboring regions, meaning they could use Iraq as a staging ground for attacks against Syria and vice versa. If Iraq had a decent army and they could work together with the Syrian army, ISIS would have remained an obscure little group of 1000 or so fighters.
For these types of conflict we need a "world police" I think, any militant group or dictator starts indiscriminately killing civilians, there is an automatic reaction from the world police. No UN deliberations needed, if it is clear the crime has been committed, a global military police force automatically comes into action and arrests (or kills) the wrongdoers. Assad would have minded his actions if he was assured there would be an automatic reprisal for shooting unarmed protestors. But that is something that is still a 100 years away or so.
- Arjan Dirkse
- Posts: 1860
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#24 by Mike_L » Oct 01, 2014 5:33 pm
Arjan Dirkse wrote:For these types of conflict we need a "world police" I think, any militant group or dictator starts indiscriminately killing civilians, there is an automatic reaction from the world police. No UN deliberations needed, if it is clear the crime has been committed, a global military police force automatically comes into action and arrests (or kills) the wrongdoers. Assad would have minded his actions if he was assured there would be an automatic reprisal for shooting unarmed protestors. But that is something that is still a 100 years away or so.
We've already got one!
-
Mike_L - Banned User
- Posts: 14455
- Country: South Africa
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#25 by tuco » Oct 02, 2014 4:08 am
Mike_L wrote:Arjan Dirkse wrote:For these types of conflict we need a "world police" I think, any militant group or dictator starts indiscriminately killing civilians, there is an automatic reaction from the world police. No UN deliberations needed, if it is clear the crime has been committed, a global military police force automatically comes into action and arrests (or kills) the wrongdoers. Assad would have minded his actions if he was assured there would be an automatic reprisal for shooting unarmed protestors. But that is something that is still a 100 years away or so.
We've already got one!
Yeah, lets make the world police the one who refuses to be subject of being policed on ground of being sovereign.
- tuco
- Posts: 16040
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#26 by Warren Dew » Oct 02, 2014 5:47 am
tuco wrote:Mike_L wrote:Arjan Dirkse wrote:For these types of conflict we need a "world police" I think, any militant group or dictator starts indiscriminately killing civilians, there is an automatic reaction from the world police. No UN deliberations needed, if it is clear the crime has been committed, a global military police force automatically comes into action and arrests (or kills) the wrongdoers. Assad would have minded his actions if he was assured there would be an automatic reprisal for shooting unarmed protestors. But that is something that is still a 100 years away or so.
We've already got one!
Yeah, lets make the world police the one who refuses to be subject of being policed on ground of being sovereign.
All police forces believe that policing applies differently to them. If you don't like that, you shouldn't be asking for a "world police".
My blog: http://psychohist.livejournal.com
-
Warren Dew - Posts: 5550
- Age: 64
- Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#27 by Darwinsbulldog » Oct 02, 2014 6:55 am
Arjan Dirkse wrote:
The first pre-requisite for an effective UN is for member nations, --especially the more powerful ones-- to be prepared to surrender some sovereignty for the common good. This simply does not happen. The "police action" in the Korean war was based on luck-the Soviet ambassador and his staff were boycotting the UN over something else, and the security council was able to get a resolution going that smacked North Korea for its invasion of the South.
After Inchon, the UN forces were able to restore the government of the South [who were as bad in some ways as the Communist government of the North], but rather than stay at the 38th parallel, Truman let McArthur invade the North, which was not in the UN mandate, but done for domestic reasons. The early US casualties changed the US public from apathy to blood-lust, and so it would have been political suicide for Truman the go to finish off the North Korean army while they had the opportunity. But in invading the North, the US did not increase the South's security, because the invasion made China feel threatened as the allies got closer, thus guaranteeing that Chinese troops would intervene to help the North Koreans counter the UN counter-offensive.
And of course, this increased the scope of the "police action" by "proxies" into a distinct probability a direct and all out war between the major powers, which might even have included nukes.
One would think, given the blood spilled in the US civil war, that every American would appreciate that when states band together in a union, some loss of state sovereignty for the commonwealth is essential. Yet the USA, as a sovereign state of great power and influence, refuses to give even the most minor concessions for the common good of the UN. The USA is not alone in this, but its system of government gives it more leeway than some other major players to set an example. Such an example may indeed make the politics of a more limited sovereignty more plausible in other countries if or when they realize that such a move by the USA is sincere.
The logic of security is to make one's own nation secure, but NOT at the cost of everyone else. Real collective security depends on each nation being a little insecure if left to their own devices, and thus fully committed to collective security. This of course, demands one makes even potential enemies a little more secure and capable than one feels comfortable with.
The MAD of the Cold War was based on this logic, but of course, was potentially disastrous. far from feeling secure the citizens of the US were living in fear of what the Soviet leadership might do, and Soviet citizens lived in fear of what the US leadership might do. Worse than that, every citizen in the world shared such insecurities, but most belonged to nations who had little power at this level.
So rather than an arms race, both US and USSR and their allies would have been better of feeling a little insecure so as to avoid the deep insecurities of a chronic arms race and cold war, which at any time could become a hot one with billions of deaths on both sides and those of innocent third parties.
For these types of conflict we need a "world police" I think, any militant group or dictator starts indiscriminately killing civilians, there is an automatic reaction from the world police. No UN deliberations needed, if it is clear the crime has been committed, a global military police force automatically comes into action and arrests (or kills) the wrongdoers. Assad would have minded his actions if he was assured there would be an automatic reprisal for shooting unarmed protestors. But that is something that is still a 100 years away or so.
The first pre-requisite for an effective UN is for member nations, --especially the more powerful ones-- to be prepared to surrender some sovereignty for the common good. This simply does not happen. The "police action" in the Korean war was based on luck-the Soviet ambassador and his staff were boycotting the UN over something else, and the security council was able to get a resolution going that smacked North Korea for its invasion of the South.
After Inchon, the UN forces were able to restore the government of the South [who were as bad in some ways as the Communist government of the North], but rather than stay at the 38th parallel, Truman let McArthur invade the North, which was not in the UN mandate, but done for domestic reasons. The early US casualties changed the US public from apathy to blood-lust, and so it would have been political suicide for Truman the go to finish off the North Korean army while they had the opportunity. But in invading the North, the US did not increase the South's security, because the invasion made China feel threatened as the allies got closer, thus guaranteeing that Chinese troops would intervene to help the North Koreans counter the UN counter-offensive.
And of course, this increased the scope of the "police action" by "proxies" into a distinct probability a direct and all out war between the major powers, which might even have included nukes.
One would think, given the blood spilled in the US civil war, that every American would appreciate that when states band together in a union, some loss of state sovereignty for the commonwealth is essential. Yet the USA, as a sovereign state of great power and influence, refuses to give even the most minor concessions for the common good of the UN. The USA is not alone in this, but its system of government gives it more leeway than some other major players to set an example. Such an example may indeed make the politics of a more limited sovereignty more plausible in other countries if or when they realize that such a move by the USA is sincere.
The logic of security is to make one's own nation secure, but NOT at the cost of everyone else. Real collective security depends on each nation being a little insecure if left to their own devices, and thus fully committed to collective security. This of course, demands one makes even potential enemies a little more secure and capable than one feels comfortable with.
The MAD of the Cold War was based on this logic, but of course, was potentially disastrous. far from feeling secure the citizens of the US were living in fear of what the Soviet leadership might do, and Soviet citizens lived in fear of what the US leadership might do. Worse than that, every citizen in the world shared such insecurities, but most belonged to nations who had little power at this level.
So rather than an arms race, both US and USSR and their allies would have been better of feeling a little insecure so as to avoid the deep insecurities of a chronic arms race and cold war, which at any time could become a hot one with billions of deaths on both sides and those of innocent third parties.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
- Darwinsbulldog
- Posts: 7440
- Age: 69
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#28 by johnbrandt » Oct 02, 2014 7:55 am
* West does nothing...we're heartless misanthropists who don't care about human suffering and should be ashamed of ourselves.
* West goes in hard with our science and technology and military might...we're heartless overblown war mongers who might occasionally let a civilian die in an attack which means the whole thing should be called off...shame on us...
You can't fucking win...
* West goes in hard with our science and technology and military might...we're heartless overblown war mongers who might occasionally let a civilian die in an attack which means the whole thing should be called off...shame on us...
You can't fucking win...
"One could spend their life looking for the perfect cherry blossom...and it would not be a wasted life"
-
johnbrandt - Posts: 4040
- Age: 59
- Country: Oztralia, ya fahn cahn
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#29 by NuclMan » Oct 03, 2014 5:09 am
johnbrandt wrote:* West does nothing...we're heartless misanthropists who don't care about human suffering and should be ashamed of ourselves.
* West goes in hard with our science and technology and military might...we're heartless overblown war mongers who might occasionally let a civilian die in an attack which means the whole thing should be called off...shame on us...
You can't fucking win...
Same could be said for the choice to not go after Assad at that time. The right choice imo.
Also, there's options other than doing fuck all and going nuclear.
- NuclMan
- Posts: 806
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#30 by Warren Dew » Oct 03, 2014 6:40 am
NuclMan wrote:johnbrandt wrote:* West does nothing...we're heartless misanthropists who don't care about human suffering and should be ashamed of ourselves.
* West goes in hard with our science and technology and military might...we're heartless overblown war mongers who might occasionally let a civilian die in an attack which means the whole thing should be called off...shame on us...
You can't fucking win...
Same could be said for the choice to not go after Assad at that time. The right choice imo.
Also, there's options other than doing fuck all and going nuclear.
Or even engaging in indiscriminate bombing without going nuclear, as we are doing.
My blog: http://psychohist.livejournal.com
-
Warren Dew - Posts: 5550
- Age: 64
- Country: Somerville, MA, USA
Re: The civilized west strikes again!
#31 by Darwinsbulldog » Oct 03, 2014 7:28 am
Warren Dew wrote:NuclMan wrote:johnbrandt wrote:* West does nothing...we're heartless misanthropists who don't care about human suffering and should be ashamed of ourselves.
* West goes in hard with our science and technology and military might...we're heartless overblown war mongers who might occasionally let a civilian die in an attack which means the whole thing should be called off...shame on us...
You can't fucking win...
Same could be said for the choice to not go after Assad at that time. The right choice imo.
Also, there's options other than doing fuck all and going nuclear.
Or even engaging in indiscriminate bombing without going nuclear, as we are doing.
Well, so long as its not nuke, its perfectly OK then....
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
- Darwinsbulldog
- Posts: 7440
- Age: 69
31 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest