U.S Draws up plans for fucking up Syria if diplomacy fails - Polidicks - Facepunch Forum

U.S Draws up plans for fucking up Syria if diplomacy fails

114 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=Conscript;36162025]That's not a fundamental flaw, a fundamental flaw would be not preventing the US or other major powers from doing whatever the fuck they wanted. The UN is supposed to represent and consider the interests of all the world's countries, not just the west's. The security council needs to have a one-vote veto because it is intended to be a collaboration of the world's most powerful states, which is concentrated in so few they could be counted on your hand, resolving world issues in a way that satisfies all interests. This kind of attitude will be the UN's undoing.[/QUOTE] No the security council is flawed. There should be no security council because it goes against the very idea of the UN. Its supposed to represent the interests of all nations not the rich few. Look at Palestine, the entire world wants to resolve the issue except for the US and Israel. There are multiple SC resolutions that would resolve the issue, but the US doesn't give a shit and Israel doesn't give a shit. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war. More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families. Really what our countries need. Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police? Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE] Those soldiers are there partly by choice, the native people who would die because of the war don't want the war and do not deserve to be killed for no fucking reason. Helping them? The west has fucked up the middle east beyond measure for the last 100 years, its time we start doing some fucking good.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36169006]Instead of a few Syrians getting slaughtered[/QUOTE] You call 15,000 a few?

is this just to resolve unrest or is Syria flirting with trading their oil in euros instead of dollars like Iraq?

[QUOTE=Thlis;36169440]You call 15,000 a few?[/QUOTE] It'll be greatly more so if the US enters.

I'm most wondering if there's more solutions than the black-and-white "diplomacy vs deployment of troops". I mean, surely our nation can come up with something more than "negotiate first, then shove them with brute force if step one doesn't work". [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] I mean, I really hate the idea of having to deploy more soldiers to a foreign country. But I also really hate the idea of letting a regime such as Assad's continue to brutalize it's people. It's times like this that I don't know what to think of the US. One day they're overthrowing democratically-elected governments and killing six civilians for every combatant in blind pursuit of insurgents and terrorists, while installing and throwing money at corrupt regimes, The next they're throwing troops at different corrupt, inhumane regimes in hopes of trying to achieve peace (whatever that may mean in this day and age). It's like we're the Hulk. Thick, misunderstood, corrupt, yet sometimes willing to be helpful in our own stupid, blundering, explosive way.

[QUOTE=joes33431;36169696]I'm most wondering if there's more solutions than the black-and-white "diplomacy vs deployment of troops". I mean, surely our nation can come up with something more than "negotiate first, then shove them with brute force if step one doesn't work".[/QUOTE] Traditionally it is more like Negotiate-> embargo -> cease diplomatic relations That path will get a lot more people killed however and may very well see the current regime continue to remain in power. So our only real option is: Negotiate -> begin military action Unless we want to see a lot more civilians dead. We always stand to gain an ally and trade partner from this sort of assistance, so it isn't without benefit to us.

The problem is what will russia and china do if we go running in there

[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war. More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families. Really what our countries need. Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police? Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE] It was sarcasm

[QUOTE=Aman VII;36162854]People die daily, it's a fact of life. So what? As I said before you can't just go around trying to save everyone especially when it's generally none of your business in the first place.[/QUOTE] That's an utterly disgusting point of view. I bet you wouldn't be thinking the same way if you were in the same situation. Don't try to deny it. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;36169792]Traditionally it is more like Negotiate-> embargo -> cease diplomatic relations That path will get a lot more people killed however and may very well see the current regime continue to remain in power. So our only real option is: Negotiate -> begin military action Unless we want to see a lot more civilians dead. We always stand to gain an ally and trade partner from this sort of assistance, so it isn't without benefit to us.[/QUOTE] Everybody's always on about how the US is in it for the oil. Well, this is the perfect opportunity to score from an oil producing nation. The US never does something that isn't in its own interest. Hopefully the government takes that into account when thinking about how to go ahead with this.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;36169834]The problem is what will russia and china do if we go running in there[/QUOTE] China probably wouldn't do a damn thing. Russia would probably bitch and whine, but nothing more. What [I]would[/I] they do? Declare war on us? [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;36169792]Traditionally it is more like Negotiate-> embargo -> cease diplomatic relations That path will get a lot more people killed however and may very well see the current regime continue to remain in power. So our only real option is: Negotiate -> begin military action Unless we want to see a lot more civilians dead. We always stand to gain an ally and trade partner from this sort of assistance, so it isn't without benefit to us.[/QUOTE] American deaths for a possibility of commerce with a war torn, broken country really isn't that great of a trade off in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;36169839]That's an utterly disgusting point of view. I bet you wouldn't be thinking the same way if you were in the same situation. Don't try to deny it. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] Everybody's always on about how the US is in it for the oil. Well, this is the perfect opportunity to score from an oil producing nation. The US never does something that isn't in its own interest. Hopefully the government takes that into account when thinking about how to go ahead with this.[/QUOTE] Syria isn't an oil producing nation. The US has ten times the oil Syria does.

[QUOTE=SatansSin;36162504]Yeah, totally need another Iraq kind of war. More sons and daughters, moms and dads, ripped from their families. Really what our countries need. Why doesn't anyone over there help them? Why must the US, Europe, or Canada have to be world police? Doesn't anyone else in that Middle East area help? Or are they just looking out for themselves?[/QUOTE] We are the only ones with both the capability of getting there easily and the means to do anything with it.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36170064]We are the only ones with both the capability of getting there easily and the means to do anything with it.[/QUOTE] Does Europe like, not exist or something?

[QUOTE=D-Roy;36163520]Although I don't support the U.S. entering another war, this is one cause that I actually support. Problem is, the U.S. doesn't have the greatest track record about dealing with civilians in a war zone (And don't give me that PTSD bullshit, my sister didn't go off and murder innocent people when diagnosed with it).[/QUOTE] Your sister also probably did not have access to extremely dangerous weapons.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;36170033]Syria isn't an oil producing nation. The US has ten times the oil Syria does.[/QUOTE] I love how in a situation where our intervention is hardly positive people are okay with it, then when our intervention would be a largely positive and necessary thing people are completely against it because "We don't need another war!!" The US military is so large it's irresponsible not to, not to mention it's ridiculous to act like our troops are going to be ground pounding at all. At most it'd be air support and naval support. We're not sending in the Marines. Sending military aid to a country is not going to war, it's aid. One of the biggest things that hinders progress as a species is isolationism. Stop saying "rabble rabble it's none of our business!!!" When your military is the majority of your funding it kind of is your business.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36170091]Does Europe like, not exist or something?[/QUOTE] Do you know how many air craft carriers France has?

[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;36170145]I love how in a situation where our intervention is hardly positive people are okay with it, then when our intervention would be a largely positive and necessary thing people are completely against it because "We don't need another war!!" The US military is so large it's irresponsible not to, not to mention it's ridiculous to act like our troops are going to be ground pounding at all. At most it'd be air support and naval support. We're not sending in the Marines. Sending military aid to a country is not going to war, it's aid. One of the biggest things that hinders progress as a species is isolationism. Stop saying "rabble rabble it's none of our business!!!" When your military is the majority of your funding it kind of is your business.[/QUOTE] Who the hell uses the size of the military to justify use of it?

[QUOTE=Cuon Alpinus;36170144]Your sister also probably did not have access to extremely dangerous weapons.[/QUOTE] When there's intent, ANYTHING can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36170152]Do you know how many air craft carriers France has?[/QUOTE] One. Italy has a couple. Spain has two. I said [B]Europe[/B], not France. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country[/url]

[QUOTE=thisispain;36164759]large-scale armed conflicts are human nature?[/QUOTE] You obviously haven't seen all the wars we've had.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36162879]I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?[/QUOTE] So you would not hesitate to give Russia the all-green to re-invade and re-occupy the Baltic countries (first among them my own, Estonia), just so you could resolve one issue in the most direct, and without a doubt ruthless fashion? There's no soft way to put this: this is an absolutely deplorable choice that mirrors on you and I am saddened that there are people out there still willing to play with the hearts and minds of MILLIONS to satisfy their immediate needs.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36164759]large-scale armed conflicts are human nature?[/QUOTE] Considering the fact that even groups of monkeys launch raids on other groups? Yes. Everywhere, in every single culture around the world throughout history there has been war. It's quite the coincidence if every single civilization and culture managed to develop war if it's not at least encouraged by our nature.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;36170343]Considering the fact that even groups of monkeys launch raids on other groups? Yes. Everywhere, in every single culture around the world throughout history there has been war. It's quite the coincidence if every single civilization and culture managed to develop war if it's not at least encouraged by our nature.[/QUOTE] Yes, war is so ingrained in our nature that there is actually no such thing as war exhaustion and there was never any waves of revolution after large wars. It's all a liberal lie. You can't compare humans to monkeys because monkeys don't have states or nations, or any kind of production. This is just an appeal to nature. 'Human nature' in the way it's being used in this thread is just a bunch of prejudices with no real insight. We've had thieves in our society since the beginning, but we're not a bunch of kleptomaniacs.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;36170033]Syria isn't an oil producing nation. The US has ten times the oil Syria does.[/QUOTE] Inlet for trade relations, then?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36169886] American deaths for a possibility of commerce with a war torn, broken country really isn't that great of a trade off in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Really I only have a problem when guardsmen start dying. Our primary branches of the military are almost exclusively designed to be offensive. The national guard are more than capable of fending off a conventional assault of almost any magnitude when you consider the ridiculously well armed population. The standard military knows exactly what they are signing up for at this point. The national guard keep getting used offensively though. Which really defeats the entire purpose of having them and really isn't why most of them signed up. Otherwise we are just paying boatloads of money for our military to do absolutely nothing. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;36171370]War has absolutely nothing to do with human nature. There are a ton of other factors that contribute to the escalation of war. Human nature is not one of them.[/QUOTE] Wolves will often wage war on other packs of wolves in order to gain more territory or hunting grounds. Humans are pack based predator mammals, and exactly like virtually every other pack predator mammal species, we will attack other creatures for our own interests beyond simply food. We are, by our very nature, war prone. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36170186]When there's intent, ANYTHING can be used as an extremely dangerous weapon. [editline]2nd June 2012[/editline] One. Italy has a couple. Spain has two. I said [B]Europe[/B], not France. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country[/url][/QUOTE] [img]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4481/carriers.gif[/img] Note that this includes amphibious assault carriers, which can basically only launch VTOL fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. It should also be noted that the UK doesn't currently have any fixed wing VTOL aircraft in service, making their four assault carriers basically helicopter transports.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36162879]I think the smartest way to handle this is to trade off attacks on Syria and Iran with the relevant powers in the region. Something like: Russia gets to attack some country that they've been dying to kick ass on and we(NATO) don't say anything. Meanwhile, NATO kicks ass on Syrian and/or Iran and the Russians back off their alliances with at least Syria. What could go wrong?[/QUOTE] You're a genius it's like a reverse prisoner exchange.

Just send a black ops team to take out Assad and officially make it look like the rebels got lucky.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36174988]Yes lets compare wolves to humans there are absolutely no other factors that we should be added to the equation besides the fact that we're both part of 'nature' and have similar behavioral instincts. The only reason we waged war in the past was because generation after generation was being raised by the same ideals. People were brought up by elders claiming that 'war is necessary' and 'conflict is necessary' and that is exactly the type of societal climate that spawned war mongering psychopaths. War is entirely the creation of society. There is no 'nature' involved in this. If we were to raise our children based on peaceful ideals and belief systems, no one would ever see war as even a remote possibility. Thus, if it is something we can easily alter if we wanted to, it isn't human nature. Furthermore, take a look at history. We've had a massive decrease in global conflicts gradually as centuries went by. Sure, we still have quite a lot of war overseas - but compare that to the 19th century where wars were rampant and would kick off at the slightest sign of dispute. Global conflict will never happen at any point in the near or far future. It cant. There are an untold numbers of UN laws that prevent just that. Governments are becoming increasingly transparent and society is watching their every move. And if the major powers of this world cannot start a war, the smaller ones won't either and will soon follow the same peaceful path.[/QUOTE] We don't go to war now because it's just not worth it. War is just a natural evolution of primitive raids on other small groups of people. All that's changed are the arms and the scale, in the end all war is just two groups trying to enforce their will on the other. War is no longer a viable action in the modern world, the cost is just too great for any resource to be worth it. War hasn't escalated since WW2 because it can't be worth it anymore. With nuclear deterrents a country cannot find the risk of nuking to be worth the resources. If not nukes, then they'll soon be defeated by other countries coming in and helping. Why do you think North Korea doesn't just invade the south? They're raised with the mindset of it having to do it, but their government knows that that the territory of South Korea is not worth it. Their government will no doubt be completely destroyed and they'd have lost their power.

[quote]Wolves will often wage war on other packs of wolves in order to gain more territory or hunting grounds. [/quote] I don't recall wolves forming nations and fighting each other because the other is part of x nation, or even making homelands. There are many reasons for war but they're all reflecting of external conditions, and not part of some some innate human function.

this thread taught me a lot about wolves

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36174988]Yes lets compare wolves to humans there are absolutely no other factors that we should be added to the equation besides the fact that we're both part of 'nature' and have similar behavioral instincts. [/quote] Instincts is what comprises human nature. We are self interested creatures, precisely like every other mammal on the planet. Wolves are quite close on the evolutionary scale and share so much in common that we were drawn together nearly one hundred thousand years ago to operate as a single pack. [quote]The only reason we waged war in the past was because generation after generation was being raised by the same ideals. People were brought up by elders claiming that 'war is necessary' and 'conflict is necessary' and that is exactly the type of societal climate that spawned war mongering psychopaths. War is entirely the creation of society. There is no 'nature' involved in this. If we were to raise our children based on peaceful ideals and belief systems, no one would ever see war as even a remote possibility. Thus, if it is something we can easily alter if we wanted to, it isn't human nature. [/quote] War is a creation of society, conflict is not. All we are seeing is the extrapolation of what happens with a population grows to our size and has our intelligence. Diplomacy is not always possible. There are always humans seeking to harm other humans out there. Letting it happen when you have the power to avoid it with relatively little effort because you don't believe that war is necessary is awful. [quote]Furthermore, take a look at history. We've had a massive decrease in global conflicts gradually as centuries went by. Sure, we still have quite a lot of war overseas - but compare that to the 19th century where wars were rampant and would kick off at the slightest sign of dispute. Global conflict will never happen at any point in the near or far future. It cant. There are an untold numbers of UN laws that prevent just that. Governments are becoming increasingly transparent and society is watching their every move. And if the major powers of this world cannot start a war, the smaller ones won't either and will soon follow the same peaceful path.[/QUOTE] ...Uh. World War I and World War II. Two conflicts on a scale that has NEVER BEEN SEEN in history. Millions of people died in what was an extremely short period of time and the conflict touched virtually everywhere on the planet. One war wasn't even enough, we had to have TWO. The only reason we stopped is because we developed a weapon so ridiculously powerful and easy to deploy that nobody could produce a good enough reason to risk being on the receiving end of another one like it. EVEN THEN we waged proxy conflicts across the world and barely escaped nuclear annihilation. Nuclear weapons are why conflicts have slowed down. Two large nations cannot wage war upon one another any longer. The UN isn't the reason we aren't engaging in large scale conflicts. The UN is a joke and may even do more harm than good.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.