Thread: does our vessel "deserve" to be fired upon?

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

Assad and the Syrian army, from thar point 'o view, are puttin' down a rebellion and attemptin' to restore order

Yes and for most of this conflict the Syrian government has even denied that there was a conflict going on.

:rolleyes:

I get that you hate the United States but if you're going to be a piece of shit who justifies the murder of innocent people for political reasons at least have the stones to proudly admit so. Had the United States chose to ignore these massacres you would be posting threads on how you hate the U.S. for that reason.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Wagner,

Assad and the Syrian army, from thar point 'o view, are puttin' down a rebellion and attemptin' to restore order. the idear 'o government's slaughterin' thar civilians be neither new or novel, nor be it isolated to Syria. if the "moral imperitive" be the rule 'o the day, why not start in Africa? the entire world be focused on the Middle East, afterall.

- MeadHallPirate

You and this "moral imperitive".

Why?

Why does there have to be a very clear, very strict, and very narrowly defined moral imperative?

Why isn't it sufficent that something which, for all the world, can be percieved as a "moral imperative" is also being used as a perfectly reasonable excuse?

It's all about plausible deniability.

Here's a transcript of a recent phone call between Rose Gottemoeller, acting Department of State Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security talking with her counterpart in Syria:

Originally Posted by Gottemoeller

What?

No, no, no, no, no.

And again, no!

We aren't supplying your insurgents with weapons because you played willing host to AQI and JAM terrorist training camps and planning cells crossing the border into Iraq while we were armpit deep in reducing the insurgency there.

We're supplying them with weapons because you're using military weapons to kill your own people.

What?

No. That's different. The Iraq insurgents weren't "our own people". They were an enemy army.

What?

Well, if you weren't supporting insurgent terrorists in Iraq but, rather, supporting peace-loving freedom fighters than that's the same thing we're doing now.

What?

LOL

Should have thought twice about supporting those Iraq freedom fighters. Funny how things have a way of biting you in the ass.

Have a nice day!

Okay, I made that up, but you see my point.

We're not supporting Syria's rebels because "it's the right thing to do".

We're supporting them because Syria was a willing participant in trying to kick us when we were down and they've offered us the perfect opportunity for a little quid pro quo retaliation that we can sell to the world as "doing the right thing".

According to the article we are not paying for or supplying the arms. We are making sure they don't fall into the hands of al-Qaeda...I really can't see anything wrong with that as the rebels would get the arms anyway and we're just making sure they don't go to our enemies. If we were to pinch them off then we would be having an argument as to whether we should be supporting Assad. Also look at who is paying for them...do we want to alienate most of our friends in the ME, as well as world opinion, to help a guy who's said he really doesn't like us on several occasions. As for whether he might attack us in the future, he'd do that anyway if he should ever find it to his advantage.

Now should we help the rebels further? definitely not...they apparently already have some outside help anyway and besides, you never help revolutionaries unless you're sure they'll win and you can use them as a proxy to kick a bigger foe in the slats....just like the French in the ARW.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Yes and for most of this conflict the Syrian government has even denied that there was a conflict going on.

:rolleyes:

I get that you hate the United States but if you're going to be a piece of shit who justifies the murder of innocent people for political reasons at least have the stones to proudly admit so. Had the United States chose to ignore these massacres you would be posting threads on how you hate the U.S. for that reason.

ahoy Wagner,

i actually don't quite get whar ye (whom to be honest i don't have that much respect fer) and Soot (whom i have the utmost regard fer) seem to care so much about the welfare 'o Syrians.

i just don't care about thar fate.

*shrugs*

in fact, i've lived every day 'o me life thus far without even once contemplatin' the fate 'o the Syrian people fer even one second...it honestly amazes me that ye both feel so righteous about our intervention, and i don't relate to it all, me bucko. IF we be subject to a terrorist attack that was partly hatched by the Assad government, be our current "secret" effort to take down the Syrian government worth it?

i can tell ye, i wouldn't trade one american life fer a village 'o Syrian rebels. why would i?

me questions here are;

1) what is our national interest in this matter?

2) do we know who we are feedin' weapons to? in the article linked, one 'o the parties we're usin' as intermediaries be the Muslim Brotherhood - and i don't need to guess yer opinion on that lot. who are our "friends" in this situation?

- MeadHallPirate

ahoy Soot,

*battens down the hatches and puts to sea agains the fearsome Soot*

Originally Posted by soot

You and this "moral imperitive".

Why?

Soot me bucko, i didn't bring up the idear 'o "moral imperative"....you did. ye said somethin' to effect that if a government uses military grade hardware in thar citizens, they ought to be ready fer the United States to intervene.

well, i have a few responses to that, matey.

first off, as i said, we sure seem to be selective 'o the application 'o this moral imperative thing. west africa? from the actions (or lack thereof) 'o the US government, it seems our national opinion be that Africans can go pound sand. thar be so many examples, Soot. Tienamen squre and deployin' tanks on protestors? we sure kept our powder dry thar too.

i say that if the Syrian government be slaughterin' thar people in an attempt to keep the government intact and retain power, 'tis really no business 'o mine. imma surprised to see that ye feel so passionately about the topic, imma more used to the Soot-like detachment on matters such as these.

also - i disagree that the Syrian government cannot claim "aggrieved status". we are pickin' out rebel forces and sendin' them ordinance to blast the Assad's forces to pieces. i mean, goddamn matey, if someone did that to us, imma rather certain our response would be brutal.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Wagner,

i actually don't quite get whar ye (whom to be honest i don't have that much respect fer) and Soot (whom i have the utmost regard fer) seem to care so much about the welfare 'o Syrians.

i just don't care about thar fate.

*shrugs*

in fact, i've lived every day 'o me life thus far without even once contemplatin' the fate 'o the Syrian people fer even one second...it honestly amazes me that ye both feel so righteous about our intervention, and i don't relate to it all, me bucko. IF we be subject to a terrorist attack that was partly hatched by the Assad government, be our current "secret" effort to take down the Syrian government worth it?

i can tell ye, i wouldn't trade one american life fer a village 'o Syrian rebels. why would i?

me questions here are;

1) what is our national interest in this matter?

2) do we know who we are feedin' weapons to? in the article linked, one 'o the parties we're usin' as intermediaries be the Muslim Brotherhood - and i don't need to guess yer opinion on that lot. who are our "friends" in this situation?

- MeadHallPirate

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED ........You are right on !

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I'm glad I know where you stand. Would you support action against a nation carrying out ethnic cleansing or genocide within it's own borders?

If the shoe was on the other foot I would be pissed, sure. But ya know what? It isn't on the other foot. I can understand their position, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it nor does it mean I can't take action against it. If we followed that rule the word would be an even darker place. Dicks, pussies, assholes and all that. Seeing injustice, and doing nothing about it despite being perfectly able, is cowardice.

Post evidence for ethnic cleansing going on in Syria.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by soot

Syria has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades so their finally working up the balls to attack us directly would almost be a breath of fresh air.

I don't necessarially think that any kind of "moral" justification would be necessary for our retaliating against such an attack, but I certainly think that an open Syrian attack on the United States would be all the justification we'd need for an open attack on Syria.

All these shitty little proxy wars are becoming tiring.

If we were to spend more time truly raining fire and destruction on all these thrid-world shitholes that want to poke us with a stick when our back is turned we'd be spending a lot less time being groped and 3d imaged at the airport.

The US has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. We've supported and trained any number of terrorist groups to include that people that founded Al Quaida.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy all,

fer some reason, i can't quite muster me enthusiasm fer the upcomin' election (though the congressional races do hold me interest), but the story that be unfoldin' in Syria hath peaked me curiosity.

fer a while now, i've kinda wondered at what the role in the United States be in all 'o this, aye?

*wonders at what role his nation is playin' in the conflict*

...and this mornin', i read this;

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/wo...rebels.html?hp

so, our nation be operatin', "secretly" (how big 'o a secret can it be if its on the front page 'o the NYT?), funnelin' arms and ordinance bein' used to attack the sittin' government 'o Syria. from what i understand from readin' USPO, Democrats seem okies dokies with this approach and i figure Republicans grudgingly approve 'o the skipper's actions.

what i was thinkin', though, be this; if the Assad regime triumphs and then (at some point down the road) assists in settin' up the infrastructure fer some kind 'o dynamic terrorist attack here in the United States, have we a right to be outraged? wouldn't we deserve the attack?

lets say that the 9/11 memorial, downtown in the financial sector 'o Manhattan, gets blown to smithereens with 100,000 lb 'o TNT - thousands 'o lives are lost in an instant, would our nation be morally justified in rainin' fire and destruction o'er the skies 'o Syria?

- MeadHallPirate

MHP,

It's a good attempt, matey, but the concept of blowback is so completely foreign to some people that they simply cannot understand it. They believe that the US has the right to meddle in any number of affairs of other countries, believing our actions to be fair and just (not just about money in some way or another). It's no different than the Cuban Missile Crisis. We put medium range nukes in Turkey and then get pissed because Russia tries to put some in Cuba. There are simply too many examples of the US playing the douchebag and then bitching when someone else does the same thing.

Originally Posted by soot

I think that's fair.

Likewise, I don't think that Syria gets to claim that they're aggrieved when we identify the group of people that they're rounding up in Homs and then shelling with field artillery and offer those people weapons to defend themselves.

If you don't want the civilized world to come to the aid of your citizens then don't turn military grade munitions on your people indiscriminantly.

I don't really care whether you're a democracy, a monarchy, a socialist republic, or a dictatorship, the purpose of government is to serve the people.

That isn't always going to work out in 100% textbook fashion. It doesn't in the United States and it doesn't in Syria. But I think there are different degress of "not serving the people".

You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time, but that doesn't make it okay to kill the people that you've displeased with indirect fire.

Homs was all about oil pipelines, not about what the Syrian government is doing or what the so called "rebels" are doing. The violence breaking out in Homs was predicted before it happened on the No Agenda podcast. Weird. It's all shadow puppet theater.

Originally Posted by Wagner

Does it matter if they're lovers of democracy?

It's not like we're contemplating intervention because we just don't like our trade relations. Assad and the Syrian Army are massacring the people.

Really? You have about |-| this much proof to back up your statement. Just like in Libya, the claims were found to be fabricated (see Qaddafi giving out Viagra to his troops to serial rape [propagated even by Hillary Clinton]). Just like the testimony about the Iraqi army stealing incubators of babies and leaving them to die was a lie and that was the catalyst for us going to war.

Nayirah (testimony) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nayirah Testimony refers to the controversial testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990, by a female who provided only her first name, Nayirah. In her emotional testimony, Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.
Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International[1] and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people, including babies, died when nurses and doctors fled the country.
In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

Damn, how freaking short memories and displays of gullibility to I have to witness on any given day on this type of shit?

Originally Posted by USCitizen

As a humantarian I would agree.
As an adult who knows people in the neighborhood and guys at the gym who are in the military I first have to know if there's really a difference between the factions and if putting an American life at risk is truly the morally correct thing to do.

As a uniformed serviceman, thanks. I don't like seeing my brothers and sisters die, maimed, or have their lives and families destroyed due to too many deployment rotations for questionable motives our outcomes.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

As a uniformed serviceman, thanks. I don't like seeing my brothers and sisters die, maimed, or have their lives and families destroyed due to too many deployment rotations for questionable motives our outcomes.

I think its sailorman or perhaps some other retired military that argued with me about how those guys kept reenlisting, so it's all good on these numerous deployments using the same soldier.

I just heard last night where we have had 155 suicides by our soldiers this year. It's cool though because they enlisted and they reenlisted too. And it does no harm to keep sending the same guys back again and again. According to some here.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I think its sailorman or perhaps some other retired military that argued with me about how those guys kept reenlisting, so it's all good on these numerous deployments using the same soldier.

I just heard last night where we have had 155 suicides by our soldiers this year. It's cool though because they enlisted and they reenlisted too. And it does no harm to keep sending the same guys back again and again. According to some here.

Duty to country should not be corrupted into being portrayed in such esteem.