i don't. but i don't see participating in the syrian civil war (and possibly engaging with the russians) to be vital to sustaining america, either..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia will shoot down alliance jets over Syria if US launches air strikes on Alassad
- Thread starter Kolx
- Start date
- Status
i don't. but i don't see participating in the syrian civil war (and possibly engaging with the russians) to be vital to sustaining america, either..
Those people exist, but they aren't the dominant voice in Putin's Western coalition.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
We're already involved, even if you leave out the military aspect we have allies and partners in Lebanon and Jordan swelled with refugees (~20-25% population increases), Turkey with the conflict at their border and spilling into it, and Europe not knowing what to do.
Either we swallow the bitter pill now or have 3 forced down our throats in 5 years.
what does that mean, exactly?
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
You essentially phrased your statement like the above with what you said. Russia are the kings of killing civilians indiscriminately and not acknowledging it. It's bad form to try to throw that back at other countries.
TheRealTalker
Banned
it means we are on the same planet and once Syria falls and become some Iran/Russia dystopia, then the effects would be global while Putin needing to grasp power and popularity will strike somewhere else and then somewhere else and then....
so every time russia gets belligerent america has to go drop bombs on innocent people to keep russia in its place?
TheRealTalker
Banned
Bombing innocent people? SAA attacking civilian areas or creating a no flyzone is bombing innocent people?
you mean like what Russia is doing right now?
you mean the majority that is basically given two options, either to be refugees and stateless or sit and get bombed, or killed?
you mean the 400,000+ people Assad already killed before Russia got even more heavily involved?
this is Sarajevo (in a sense) all over again
you think because your on another continent it means nothing but everything is connected
You are wasting your time arguing, the guy is brainwashed on hezbollah propoganda through and through. Can't blame him, in Lebanon your religion and your geopolitical interests are determined by birth. It's standard to claim that Bashar has majority support - even though he's alienated 80% of his country. Some people -.-
that's part of my concern. i think a connection can be made between the US blowing people up in the middle east and the existence of anti-american hatred that thrives in that region. maybe i'm wrong.
TheRealTalker
Banned
the US did indeed screw up a ton of places but likely what would cause anger this time is if they the world power sit back and allow this to happen
it isn't like allowing Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, etc... to run amok will gain favor between their supporters and the US
they hate the US regardless and would instead laugh at the US and cause more chaos and destruction
basically it feels like we are reaching the climax of the ME crisis
You're arguing ethics when it has no place in real politics. Where were those ethics when Saddam Hussein massacred 200,000 Shia back in 1991 and displaced millions while the whole world stood silent? Why did the world allow a tyrant to quell an uprising then but not now? And only after the uprising was quelled did they "intervene".
Tell me where are the ethics in turning a blind eye to the massacres in Yemen?
Because there are no ethics in politics, it is pointless to discuss it, only self interests, and the US chooses who to depose and when because it suits them.
When the whole world is treated equally by the international community then we can discuss ethics. Until then, same way the US can protect and keep its dictators I don't see why Russia cannot.
Assad will never win any free elections, but at the end of the day the people living in Latakia, Tartus, Damascus and other government controlled cities go about their business normally, co existing, I think for the time being that is more important, no citizen in those areas would give a shit about elections.
As if I would give a phalangist/FM supporter the time of day, you're becoming more and more irrelevant.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Do you know what you're even typing?
Do you?
A) Yemen's war is also bad and so the country is likely to split we know that (and Yemen is not even close to what is happening in Syria)
B) Iraq with Saddam is also a tyrant and the passed showed his atrocities
BUT ARE YOU ACTUALLY ADVOCATING FOR GENOCIDE and diaspora because of other countries and past histories that have nothing to do with Syria.
Do you know that everything you just said doesn't make sense?
Different scenarios, different countries and different outcomes on different times means people can justify rapping, killing, pillaging and stealing a whole nation of it inhabitants but they share a similar sect to a psychopath.
and that is what it is since you are advocating for the deletion of more then 80% of a country because you feel hatred about another thing that doesn't EVEN relate to the people you are saying are allowed to be killed?
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU JUST SAID?
You know what you are saying is no better then ISIS or Nazis or any other LUNATICS.
I am sorry but you need to stop and think on what you are saying and what you are justifying because of your negative emotions you want to place lethally on others.
I can't even... I just can't your mind is beyond twisted now you let hatred make you into a maniac.
Scale among other things (motive) determine what is an accident and what is intentional (note: indiscriminate strikes are in fact intentional). This has nothing to do with bias when comparing these two factions. U.S and Russia are currently very different in their handling of warfare, with Russian strikes being significantly more disproportionate and devastating to enemies and civilians alike. To try to dispute this means you know nothing of what you are talking about and should read up on it more before discussing it.
What to know what aren't accidents?
Dresden
Vietnam bombing campaign
London and Berlin air campaigns from Nazi Germany and British/American air force.
Soviet's disregard for civilians both their own and their enemy's
Any civilian caused by indiscriminate attacks such as dumb cluster bombs.
No matter what you say, the West has been doing a lot in terms of tech and military tactics to reduce civilian casualties, which is counter to what Russia and Syria is doing.
I am not sure what you mean in the last part of your 1st paragraph. No one besides the one trying to defend their actions in civilian deaths believe the self-investigation bull.
There are reasons many people have some form of understanding of accidents in the fog of war, given the context of that nation's or group's history of course. Part of that is, war is hell and you can't eliminate civilian casualties with the technology we have and while using humans, who are prone to bad judgement.
Kunduz for example; U.S has literally no reason to hit Doctors without Borders especially since it was recently taken by the Taliban and not a full on rebel territory, so why would I think it was deliberate?
Phantast2k
Member
How does one bomb hospitals 23 times in a city in the span of ~3 months by accident?
Syria: Eastern Aleppo hospitals damaged in 23 attacks since July | Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International
Syria: Eastern Aleppo hospitals damaged in 23 attacks since July | Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International
dripdripsplash
Member
We need intervention.
The worst stain on obamas legacy is when he backed down from his red line promise.
A strong US policing the world is preferable to what is the case now.
The worst stain on obamas legacy is when he backed down from his red line promise.
A strong US policing the world is preferable to what is the case now.
Yes, always worked out just perfectly so far!
I don't know, do you? is this some kind of parody?
so because Russia is "more evil", the U.S.' actions are justifiable? I'm not sure if that's really an achievement to be proud of. From your point of argument, no matter what the U.S. does it cannot be seen as intentional as it will always pale in comparison.
also I never disputed anything, not sure why you believe that. All I ever said was, that in a situation like this, one's own side is always painted in a way more favourable light. and your excuse ridden answer is no exception... "reducing casualties" and "accidents". If "the west" wanted to reduce casualties, if this was really about Syrians, than this conflict would look vastly different or would probably over by now. But it is not, this is a global power game, a proxy war, a prime example for neo realism, and nobody gives a shit about the Syrians, the west included. There have been countless opportunities to end this, but every party involved is under internal and external pressure to stick it to the bad guy. This certainly has nothing to do with reducing casualties there, but with reducing casualties at home in terms of votes.
"no one besides the one trying to defend their actions in civilian deaths believe the self-investigation bull..." so is this why the U.S. insisted on self-investigations in the Kunduz case and prevented every attempt by doctors without borders for an independent one? I'm sure if this was done by Russia, it would not be an accident but intentional, and the prevention of said investigation is just as good as admitting guilt. but in the U.S. case it is fine I guess...
nothing but double standards and own-side bias, sry.
just like the example above, as long as this conflict continues, reports will sugar coat the "good guys'" actions and accusations may be based on biased data. And I think it's incredibly dangerous to buy into that, getting fired up to support the good cause from some sort of moral high ground that is nothing but an illusion. But maybe that's exactly the lesson the the U.S. learned from the negative press it got during the Vietnam war?
The first casualty of War is Truth. And that is not one-sided.
Pfft, did you read that on Sputnik or something?
Netherscourge
Banned
Russia can't afford World War 3.
At least we have objective observers such as yourself in this thread to equate the situations in Ukraine and Syria.
Elfforkusu
Member
So, fuck America because of the Iraq/Iran war as well? Or is that ok because Dubya overthrew that particular piece of shit decades later?
Please advise...
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Who can?
it really has produced amazing results. no other option is even worth thinking about tbh.
TheRealTalker
Banned
bloody whataboutism
it is as if you can't condemn Russia's action without apparently being a Nato/US shill
it is as if you can't condemn Russia's action without apparently being a Nato/US shill
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Your sensible argument would find no purchase because many live in a bubble we're they have been brainwashed into thinking that one government "cares" more than another. It seems many don't understand that there is no morality or ethics in world politics, only interests.
eot
Banned
Austria, not Australia
TheRealTalker
Banned
Major Updates
While now the US is now
While now the US is now
Wasn't the effectiveness of MANPADs limited during the Soviet-Afghan war? Didn't the Soviets just install countermeasures on their aircraft?
TheRealTalker
Banned
ManPads can also be used for Helicopters
like the ones dropping phosphorus and also older model planes like what the SAA is using
plus sometimes even with the latest tech MANPADs can still be effective against modern jets as much as the promotional tech videos try and say other wise
hence the whole reason as to why more haven't been given to the rebel groups for so long
I can't wait for the first Russian jet to be shot down with American-supplied MANPADS then. This'll go swimmingly.
TheRealTalker
Banned
the US is aware of that but the bogus ceasefire that Russia did with them and the lies and escalation that Russia continued to do made them not give a bit anymore
but your basically right it is now just who can afford what now and at what costs
the civilians will be the main victims of Putin's retaliation
AcademicSaucer
Member
The US needs to talk to the people they are supporting because right now the rebels are killing each other and the SAA is steamrolling them in Aleppo and Hama.
Unfortunately, it is not because the rebels are fighting each other that they are losing ground, it is because the SAA and Russia have unrestricted airspace. MANPADS really is the only thing U.S can do to aide them at the moment.
Not quite sure how you came to this conclusion. I was telling you how you differentiate intentional and accidental loss of life. This has nothing to do with good vs evil, however when you say something with no substance, then I will respond.
You do yourself a disservice by thinking this is a proxy war only between Russia and the West, this is also a proxy war of Sunni vs Shia.
I am not sure what you mean by "this conflict would look vastly different". The West is filled with war weary populace in democratic settings, which hampers any decisive decisions on conflicts like this. Not to mention Russia controls UN veto votes, which effectively stops any international intervention The only way this would be over right now is if there was an intervention by the West years ago, as I do not believe the gulf states would stop supplying the rebels.
Unless you are one of those that think an Assad controlled Syria can be peaceful at this stage?
What are you talking about? We are talking about the differences in airstrikes and what makes one worse than the other.
You would need a better example than Kunduz airstrike, because it was obviously an accident. Again you ignored my entire last post which is how we define accidental loss of life and intentional
If Russia bombed one hospital and goes on a long time before another incident of it again, then it can definitely be accidental, but when you have a country constantly bombing hospitals in spans of months, then there is no way it is an accident.
One more time I will say it; indiscriminate attacks are deemed intentional when they kill civilians, because that is what an indiscriminate attack is going to do.
Also please stop acting like there is no one condemning U.S's bombing of civilians, there are plenty of examples of it and you will find it rare for any legit media to immediately defend it. There is also the fact that U.S military owns up to such strikes whereas Russia, says "I do not know of such a strike" almost all the time.
There will be bias from all sides. The difference here is there are also critics of U.S policy within U.S and the West as well via media, politicians, and other organizations, this is not the case for Russia.
MisterFalcon
Member
If they are "steamrolling" them you'd think that after weeks of carpetbombing by the Russians they would have taken Aleppo by now. Fighting for Aleppo has been going on for 4,5 years now and it's been proven time and time again the SAA is quite incapable of taking any territory against people fighting back.
AcademicSaucer
Member
Well, apparently something has changed because as you say for years they weren't able to advance, they were stuck north of handarat camp, but in the last few days they have captured all the way to Awijah and keep on advancing and the forces that should theoretically try to lift the siege from outside are killing each other. If things continue as they are Eastern Aleppo is going to fall.
Yoda
Member
Obama was a bit slow counter-acting Russia. This is a good instance of hindsight being 20/20 (for us), but at the time it made more sense to believe Russia would act in it's economic interest vs. the ego of it's dictator. Putin's rationale was always that a stronger EU would diminish Russia and it's closest allies economic bargaining power. The irony here is that the EU is inflicting a majority of the harm on itself via Brexit, having no long-term plan to handle refugees, and half the member nations still being in a recession from the 08 meltdown. Putin's military adventures in Ukraine were an afterthought (from an economic standpoint) to the health of the EU, yet it cost his nation dearly.
Syria is a tougher pickle. In Putin's eyes, the U.S. doesn't have standing to correct the situation, especially due to the fact we are blamed for letting the clown out of the box (Iraq destabilized -> leave -> ISIS). Given Syria was a close ally to Russia, and the Obama administration wants to remove Assad on Humanitarian grounds (while the same administration turns a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia <-- this might be changing as we speak... but it took far too long) Putin sees this as faux outrage, only being exercised in an opportunistic fashion.
There are no good options anymore. There's no faction we can use as a proxy. The nation best primed to fix the situation is about to become an Islamist Dictatorship (Turkey). If ground troops were deployed we'd be fighting multiple factions @ once(Assad, Russia via proxy, ISIS).
Syria is a tougher pickle. In Putin's eyes, the U.S. doesn't have standing to correct the situation, especially due to the fact we are blamed for letting the clown out of the box (Iraq destabilized -> leave -> ISIS). Given Syria was a close ally to Russia, and the Obama administration wants to remove Assad on Humanitarian grounds (while the same administration turns a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia <-- this might be changing as we speak... but it took far too long) Putin sees this as faux outrage, only being exercised in an opportunistic fashion.
There are no good options anymore. There's no faction we can use as a proxy. The nation best primed to fix the situation is about to become an Islamist Dictatorship (Turkey). If ground troops were deployed we'd be fighting multiple factions @ once(Assad, Russia via proxy, ISIS).
- Status