Up to 13,000 were hanged at Syria prison- Amnesty Report
38 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Meester;51789024]And sometimes you don't settle for the lesser evil because in reality it is not lesser just different.
Humanitarianism is not focused on geopolitics, but the simple need to halt suffering and atrocity.[/QUOTE]
So the solution then is?..
[QUOTE=gudman;51789106]So the solution then is?..[/QUOTE]
Invade the country and start a nuclear war with Russia apparently. That is what would happen if we made significant moves to oust Assad.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51789206]Invade the country and start a nuclear war with Russia apparently. That is what would happen if we made significant moves to oust Assad.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish. Russia would not start nuclear war over Assad. Assad is a convenient pawn but ultimately expendable. If Assad were ousted (not gonna happen), Russia could just wait the intervention to inevitably fail and return to help bebulding the country with whomever, because by that point US voting public would be completely fed up with yet another pointless Middle Eastern conflict and unwilling to make another decade's commitment there.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51789295]Rubbish. Russia would not start nuclear war over Assad. Assad is a convenient pawn but ultimately expendable. If Assad were ousted (not gonna happen), Russia could just wait the intervention to inevitably fail and return to help bebulding the country with whomever, because by that point US voting public would be completely fed up with yet another pointless Middle Eastern conflict and unwilling to make another decade's commitment there.[/QUOTE]
We have no idea how Russia would respond if we tried to invade Syria (which is what removing Assad would entail). I'm not willing to call their bluff and risk nuclear war.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51789299]We have no idea how Russia would respond if we tried to invade Syria (which is what removing Assad would entail). I'm not willing to call their bluff and risk nuclear war.[/QUOTE]
That's much more realistic attitude, even if still exaggarated. Russia knows full nuclear exchange has no winners and Assad isn't worth gambling the fate of Motherland over it. So I ask that people stop repeating Putin's intimidation to heat up the nuclear fires whenever Russian interests are threatened. It's fearmongering with little basis in fact and spreading fear is submitting to it. By now it should be apparent that over-enthusiastic fearmongery turns away moderates.
Nobody is saying Assad is good. But have you not fucking learn from Iraq in 2003? Went down for no reason, and then sacked the entire government, leaving a vacuum, and a space for insurgents.
You take out Assad now, you get Iraq 2.0.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51789299]We have no idea how Russia would respond if we tried to invade Syria (which is what removing Assad would entail). I'm not willing to call their bluff and risk nuclear war.[/QUOTE]
Why would Putin decide a nuclear wasteland was better than simply losing one of Russia's supporters (kind of)? It'd be completely irrational, and much worse has happened without Russia (or the Soviet Union) pushing the button.
If you're not willing to call their bluff, what are you gonna do when Putin comes and asks for a trillion dollaridoos for his new wall project? Are you gonna say "he-he-here... please no nuke... just ask if there's anything else you want"? Opposing Russian interests don't automatically lead to war, and especially not nuclear war. If the US invaded Moscow, it'd be something else.
Edit: Not saying taking out Assad is the right choice (I don't really know if there's a right choice here, but let's say "not ISIS"), but honestly I don't think a pussy attitude is gonna work with Russia. If Putin sees that people are too afraid to retaliate on invasions or oppose Russian interests in general, he's just gonna push his luck.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51789776]Why would Putin decide a nuclear wasteland was better than simply losing one of Russia's supporters (kind of)? It'd be completely irrational, and much worse has happened without Russia (or the Soviet Union) pushing the button.
If you're not willing to call their bluff, what are you gonna do when Putin comes and asks for a trillion dollaridoos for his new wall project? Are you gonna say "he-he-here... please no nuke... just ask if there's anything else you want"? Opposing Russian interests don't automatically lead to war, and especially not nuclear war. If the US invaded Moscow, it'd be something else.[/QUOTE]
You're right. We should expand NATO to every country surrounding Russia. With this attitude, they would never risk a conflict.
Under your worldview, nothing seems worth fighting for. I'm afraid you're wrong, and Russia would indeed fight to keep influence over Syria.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;51789803]You're right. We should expand NATO to every country surrounding Russia. With this attitude, they would never risk a conflict.[/quote]
Wow, please quote me on that. There's a difference between appeasement (which you seem to be arguing for) through ceding NATO interests, expanding NATO unprovoked, and retaliating because of Russian aggression - for example when they invaded Ukraine. Doesn't have to be military action, I'd always hope for something else.
[quote]Under your worldview, nothing seems worth fighting for. I'm afraid you're wrong, and Russia would indeed fight to keep influence over Syria.[/QUOTE]
Apparently someone taking your shovel (that you don't exactly own - my guess is a hypothetical US invasion would try to establish democracy, and not reinstate a dictator who is killing his own people en masse) in the sandbox is a rational justification for blowing up the sandbox. Sorry, it isn't.
There are many things worth fighting for - liberty for example, or against a dictator who's murdering his own people. Apparently you don't think those things are worth fighting for? I don't doubt Russia would try to protect its interests, but they aren't going to nuclear war (making everyone losers) just because they want to be friendly with Assad.
Edit: Like honestly, your entire post is basically just a straw man. Good job making me reply to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.