Repost of the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps in Syria Thread

[Shofercia]

I don't disagree, I think it's rather pitiful though that people are critiquing the US and Europe for daring to think about intervention, whether it be troops on the ground or sending weapons, as the Russians are sending arms to Assad and only worsening the situation even more.

The trouble with the US intervening is that they often mess it up. It could very easily end up as a new Afghanistan, with US weapons being provided as a counter to the Russians and later being used to fight the US as well.

I think the EU countries should intervene though, in particular France.

France's intervention in Libya was successful only due to the sheer ineptitude of Libya's Armed Forces. For instance, the French stationed their aircraft carrier next to Libya, where a well placed missile shots, missiles that Libya might've had, could've taken care of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13573848

We joined the nuclear powered carrier off Libya's coast. This is where the Charles de Gaulle has been conducting military operations for the past two months. Launching an endless stream of warplanes loaded with bombs by day and by night. A giant floating runway within easy reach of Colonel Gaddafi's forces. Her location always shifting according to the weather and the targets. The ship can move as much as 1,000km over a 24 hour period.

[Shofercia]

You can think whatever you want. But when thoughts turn into posts, I get to criticize them. Additionally, the Russian Taxpayers aren't paying for the weapons. Whereas, I'm still waiting for the Iraqi War to pay for itself, as was promised, and I doubt that I'll ever get that taxpayer money back.

Hmm. Interesting, I didn't realize by critiquing Russia's selling of weapons to Assad, thereby worsening the situation, that I've suddenly embraced western interventionism and the Iraq War. One mistake doesn't justify another. It has nothing to do with money, it's about doing the decent and right thing. Profitting from a bunch of Syrians brutally butchering each other can hardly be justified.

Not what I said. You're certainly welcome to critique Russia's weapons sales, and I'll explain why they're doing it, i.e. in response to EU's actions and external threats against Syria. It's not merely for profit. Also, America sells the most weapons. Do you think those are going to great humanitarian causes?

The trouble with the US intervening is that they often mess it up. It could very easily end up as a new Afghanistan, with US weapons being provided as a counter to the Russians and later being used to fight the US as well.

I think the EU countries should intervene though, in particular France.

I don't recall saying the US or the EU should intervene...I just don't think the Russians should be selling Assad weapons.

From the post that he's responding to:

I don't disagree, I think it's rather pitiful though that people are critiquing the US and Europe for daring to think about intervention, whether it be troops on the ground or sending weapons, as the Russians are sending arms to Assad and only worsening the situation even more.

[Disserbia]

The trouble with the US intervening is that they often mess it up. It could very easily end up as a new Afghanistan, with US weapons being provided as a counter to the Russians and later being used to fight the US as well.

I think the EU countries should intervene though, in particular France.

I don't recall saying the US or the EU should intervene...I just don't think the Russians should be selling Assad weapons.

Why not? Also is that even what this thread is about?

[Prizea]

I don't disagree, I think it's rather pitiful though that people are critiquing the US and Europe for daring to think about intervention, whether it be troops on the ground or sending weapons, as the Russians are sending arms to Assad and only worsening the situation even more.

You at least suggested that Europe (and by extension EU countries since they are all in Europe) and the USA should intervene.

[Farnhamia]

Libya is in the Middle East now?

He is having a rant. You can't let simple facts such as geography get in the way of a good rant.

Nor should you. Anyway, viewed from Polynesia, Libya is kind of in the "Middle East." So is Europe.

[Prizea]

I don't recall saying the US or the EU should intervene...I just don't think the Russians should be selling Assad weapons.

Why not? Also is that even what this thread is about?

I think the thread is intended to act as a discussion of the issues of foreign intervention in Syria. Even if it isn't, I imagine we will continue discussing this as it is interesting to debate about.

[Brocwika]

This reminds me of a funny story in the Onion News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1kmyD-W2JI

Skip to 0:24

[Disserbia]

Why not? Also is that even what this thread is about?

I think the thread is intended to act as a discussion of the issues of foreign intervention in Syria. Even if it isn't, I imagine we will continue discussing this as it is interesting to debate about.

Well yes, but the post did not address the main topic of the thread, which was not Russia selling weapons to Assad.

[Rio Cana]

It turns out that Belarus to the North got more contamination then Ukraine. Around 23% of Belarus is contaminated. The Ukrainian based nuclear power plant was near there southern border. Could explain why Belarus is building there own nuclear plant near there Northern border with Lithuania. Found out Kaliningrad is doing the same but on there eastern border with Lithuania.

Was contaminated. It's not contaminated anymore. Fuck those idiots who decided to try out running nuclear reactors at 110% of capacity, and then try to cover it up.

That's not what these people say. They even say the 30 Km. exclusion zone around the plant is a joke.

The following from an article on some people who were moving back illegally into contaminated sites.

Ukraine's emergency situations minister, Volodymyr Shandra, who oversees Chornobyl issues, says the contamination is concentrated below the surface -- precisely where potatoes and other tubers grow.

"We must understand that this territory is contaminated by radiation," Shandra notes. "This radioactive contamination is located some 15-20 centimeters below the surface of the earth and in other places as well, such as trees. It's transuranium contamination, which is very long-lasting -- for hundreds of years."

Found this good news report on the impact on Belarus. I really did not think things were this bad. Seems Belarus and neighbors have kept quiet. The Japanese who had there own contamination problem have done the same. Sweeping everything quietly under the rug.

Video seems to be from 2001 which is 12 years ago but still contamination exists since decay rates takes a long time.

Video 1 - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg265i ... avYIEbD-1s

Video 2 - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg265i ... avYIEbD-1s

[Mike the Progressive]

Why not?

Because more weapons means more dead?

Also is that even what this thread is about?

Welcome to NSG. I'm Mike. And you are?

[Prizea]

The trouble with the US intervening is that they often mess it up. It could very easily end up as a new Afghanistan, with US weapons being provided as a counter to the Russians and later being used to fight the US as well.

I think the EU countries should intervene though, in particular France.

France's intervention in Libya was successful only due to the sheer ineptitude of Libya's Armed Forces. For instance, the French stationed their aircraft carrier next to Libya, where a well placed missile shots, missiles that Libya might've had, could've taken care of it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13573848

We joined the nuclear powered carrier off Libya's coast. This is where the Charles de Gaulle has been conducting military operations for the past two months. Launching an endless stream of warplanes loaded with bombs by day and by night. A giant floating runway within easy reach of Colonel Gaddafi's forces. Her location always shifting according to the weather and the targets. The ship can move as much as 1,000km over a 24 hour period.

My wish for France to intervene isn't based on any evaluation of their past performance. It is mainly based on the viewpoint that it is their former colony and as such in the same way the UK was morally obliged to intervene in Afghanistan to sort out problems there, France is morally obliged to intervene in Syria and attempt to sort out the problems that Syria is having.

[Disserbia]

Why not?

Because more weapons means more dead?

Also is that even what this thread is about?

Welcome to NSG. I'm Mike. And you are?

Or it means the war ends sooner and Syria doesn't collapse into anarchy and then turn into a theocracy.

I'm Snooki, and I'm fucking wasssttteeeeeeed.

[Prizea]

I think the thread is intended to act as a discussion of the issues of foreign intervention in Syria. Even if it isn't, I imagine we will continue discussing this as it is interesting to debate about.

Well yes, but the post did not address the main topic of the thread, which was not Russia selling weapons to Assad.

So then if you knew the answer to the question why bother...
It was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

[Disserbia]

Well yes, but the post did not address the main topic of the thread, which was not Russia selling weapons to Assad.

So then if you knew the answer to the question why bother...
It was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

I was hoping you'd get the point and drop your useless and irrelevant strawman.

[Prizea]

So then if you knew the answer to the question why bother...
It was a rhetorical question, wasn't it?

I was hoping you'd get the point and drop your useless and irrelevant strawman.

It was relevant in a way. The point was that the volunteer forces as well as the authorities shouldn't be allowed to aid Assad without aid being sent from the the Western Democracies to counterbalance this.

I am still not certain how I ended up defending the person I was arguing against.

[Disserbia]

I was hoping you'd get the point and drop your useless and irrelevant strawman.

It was relevant in a way. The point was that the volunteer forces as well as the authorities shouldn't be allowed to aid Assad without aid being sent from the the Western Democracies to counterbalance this.

I am still not certain how I ended up defending the person I was arguing against.

Countries should be able to pursue their own polices towards Syria. Plus the West is aiding the rebels.

[Prizea]

It was relevant in a way. The point was that the volunteer forces as well as the authorities shouldn't be allowed to aid Assad without aid being sent from the the Western Democracies to counterbalance this.

I am still not certain how I ended up defending the person I was arguing against.

Countries should be able to pursue their own polices towards Syria. Plus the West is aiding the rebels.

Personally I would agree with you. The reason the USA is being critised is not that it wishes to intervene, but is instead that an intervention from the US is usually badly planned and poorely executed.

[Rio Cana]

Like I have always posted, no one should get involved directly in other nations civil wars.

Having said that, Assad would have lost if the West had gotten directly involved early on. But the Russian card has protected Assad. And it really seems he will win this, especially, if no major outside force gets involved. He has regrouped and attacking back hard.

Turkey which everyone was sure would get involved in Syria, suddenly has its own problems. And Turkish citizens living in border towns are getting tired of the Syrians in Turkey. There has been violence against Syrians by Turkish citizens. Some Syrians have preferred to go back into Syria. Turkey is even building a wall on one of its border crossings. Those Syrians in Jordan have been grouped together. They are adequately supplied but there is no law and order which is causing much havoc.

All this shows us that the West and Turkey might not really have the Syrians peoples interest in mind. There main goal seems regime change in Syria while what happens to the regular Syrian civilians is secondary.

Read this - http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... -town?lite

[Disserbia]

Countries should be able to pursue their own polices towards Syria. Plus the West is aiding the rebels.

Personally I would agree with you. The reason the USA is being critised is not that it wishes to intervene, but is instead that an intervention from the US is usually badly planned and poorely executed.

I think also we're unsure about who these rebels are and Russia blocked it. Also US aid is usually conducted with regards to ulterior motives, I'm not sure what they'd be here though, other than regional alliances which the US already has going for it (Israel and Turkey). Another deterrent is Afganistan 1987 and all that, there is evidence of radical Islamists infiltrating rebel forces.

[Prizea]

Personally I would agree with you. The reason the USA is being critised is not that it wishes to intervene, but is instead that an intervention from the US is usually badly planned and poorely executed.

I think also we're unsure about who these rebels are and Russia blocked it. Also US aid is usually conducted with regards to ulterior motives, I'm not sure what they'd be here though, other than regional alliances which the US already has going for it (Israel and Turkey). Another deterrent is Afganistan 1987 and all that, there is evidence of radical Islamists infiltrating rebel forces.

I suppose they may wish to cosy up to OPEC, which probably supports the revolution. They could also be attempting to split off the radicals from the more moderate religious extremists (although that term sounds like a contradiction).

[Mike the Progressive]

Or it means the war ends sooner and Syria doesn't collapse into anarchy and then turn into a theocracy.

If the majority of Syrians favor a theocracy, they should be given a theocracy. By saying "nope, you can't do that" we are imposing our will on them. Not to mention, the rebels are more complex than that. To say they are all theocrats (or even hint at it) would be like saying something as silly as most Muslims are terrorists.

In any case, I don't mind NOT intervening, but I think the Russians selling Assad weapons is hardly a good or even a tolerable thing.

I'm Snooki, and I'm fucking wasssttteeeeeeed.

Snooki....is muff-cabbage and kinda disgusting.

JWoww is better, I mean her tits are... stupendous.

[Mike the Progressive]

Countries should be able to pursue their own polices towards Syria. Plus the West is aiding the rebels.

Personally I would agree with you. The reason the USA is being critised is not that it wishes to intervene, but is instead that an intervention from the US is usually badly planned and poorely executed.

That's not necessarily true.

The problem with any country intervening in another is a lack of understanding of the country they are trying to change. It's not a unique trait to American foreign policy, it's just America's foreign policy is more pronounced at the moment.

[Greed and Death]

Russian and Ukranian volunteers.

AKA "mercenaries"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18321748

Middle Eastern dictators have a habit of calling on the help of Eastern European contracted killers.

In fairness repairing military equipment does not a mercenary make.

[Disserbia]

Or it means the war ends sooner and Syria doesn't collapse into anarchy and then turn into a theocracy.

If the majority of Syrians favor a theocracy, they should be given a theocracy. By saying "nope, you can't do that" we are imposing our will on them. Not to mention, the rebels are more complex with that. To say they are all theocrats (or even hint at it) would be like saying something as silly as most Muslims are terrorists.

In any case, I don't mind NOT intervening, but I think the Russians selling Assad weapons is hardly a good or even a tolerable thing.

I'm Snooki, and I'm fucking wasssttteeeeeeed.

Snooki....is muff-cabbage and kinda disgusting.

JWoww is better, I mean her tits are... stupendous.

Tyranny of the majority is no good either though, and Russia isn't imposing their will on anyone, and Ukrainians going to fight because Orthodox Christians are being killed or for whatever reason, it's their prerogative. Furthermore, I never said that all the rebels are Islamists, I just said there is evidence that many of the reble forces have been infiltrated by them and so it follows that theocracy could be a real possibility. I don't think that what will replace Assad is going to be much better than Assad if he loses and of course there is no way to know that, but there isn't much evidence to the contrary either and meanwhile tons of people are dying and the country is being torn apart. So I see no problem with Russia selling Assad weapons, or the US aiding the rebels (which they are just not with weapons). The devil you know...

Also, they're both gross, at that point it doesn't matter how nice her tits are cuz she's gross, gross, gross gross gross gross gross.

[Disserbia]

Personally I would agree with you. The reason the USA is being critised is not that it wishes to intervene, but is instead that an intervention from the US is usually badly planned and poorely executed.

That's not necessarily true.

The problem with any country intervening in another is a lack of understanding of the country they are trying to change. It's not a unique trait to American foreign policy, it's just America's foreign policy is more pronounced at the moment.

America isn't really worse at it than other imperialist swine though.