Coups and the occupation of Lebanon aren’t “open warfare”. That leaves us with the Arab-Israeli wars that ended 40 years ago (two generations). The Syrian population (“these people”) hasn’t been at war for generations as you stated. You’re using a pretense to deshumanize “these people”. Syrian people were like you : they had a job and a family to take care of. They weren’t “engaged in warfare”.
And if you want to count military interventions in a foreign country as open warfare, can I remind you that by this account the American people have been engaged in open warfare for many generations too?
I didn’t reply to newcomer’s post, I replied to you. Read my post again. I notice you still don’t cite what I actually said.
Since when are you shy about posting previous posts to make your point? Please show us where I defended newcomer’s specific claim as valid, or could not tell the difference between evidence of an incident and providing an example of someone’s reasoning. Newcomer was asked by Ibn to explain his reasoning. I asked Ibn to clarify his reply to that reasoning. Read my post again. What other claims did I make or arguments did I advance???
ETA: Regarding your later post: Citing Ibn’s posts but not mine proves what you allege I said? I guess you’ve got nothing.
Thanks, I’d actually forgotten to point that out in my earlier response to him.
Until relatively recently, it was mostly good for western countries in general and France in particular. No communist backed (or Libyan backed, occasionnally) government, safeguard of western economical interests in Africa, especially French ones, and no complete crazyness (ala Bokassa I). France behaved in Francophone Africa a bit like the USA in its south-American backyard (except with more frequent military action), propping up sympathetic dictators as needed and making sure that French business interests were protected.
During the last 15-20 years or so, France has become much less interventionist, closed most of its military bases, and began to take into account the will of the population and the preservation of democracy, which were previously mostly irrelevant. The two last interventions (in Ivoty Coast and Mali) could be said to be supportive of those two concerns even though they weren’t the only ones.
…wow
Seriously, you should write a script to remove the words “reading” and “comprehension” from text that your keyboard can create. Here, I’ll write really slow for you, okay? Ready?
I cited a post with both Newcomer’s claim and then Ibn’s response. That was enough to prove that you had no fucking clue what you were responding to as you did not, and evidently still do not, comprehend what was going on. You’re now compounding that with an even more baffling display. Yes, you cannot tell the difference between the CIA directing CNN on exactly what to write, and “influence”. Proven by the fact that the discussion was about the CIA directing CNN on exactly what to write, and then you started posting nonsense about “influence”.
I thought you had a fingernail’s grasp on understanding this thread and that you were denying that Ibn and Newcomer’s discussion was about the CIA controlling CNN… but evidently you wanted a cite for the fact that you were strawmanning Newcomer’s argument by responding to Ibn and asking about whether or not the government ever influences or tries to influence the news media. Is that really, seriously, what you want?
You didn’t understand a very simple discussion between Newcomer and Ibn. Okay, embarrassing but hardly fatal. You compounded that mistake by babbling about Operation Mocking bird, explicitly in the context of Newcomer claiming that the CIA controls CNN and Ibn responding to him. In point of fact, it’s so obvious that you utterly lacked any comprehension of what was going on that you claimed Ibn’s discussion with Newcomer was “a rant about things no one has mentioned here”. That after you responded to a discussion, in context, between Newcomer and Ibn about CIA control of the US media, and you inserted the word “influence” instead of control.
The charitable interpretation would have been that you were able to comprehend what was going on, and had accidentally used a weasel word like “influence” when the discussion was over CIA control so extreme that it dictates what articles CNN will publish and when. Evidently you didn’t comprehend what was going on, and you actually thought that there was a discussion about influence going on and that Ibn was somehow equivocating or conflating things. So, yeah, if you can’t tell the difference between the CIA forcing a major news organization to publish what it wants, when it wants, and governmental “influence”?
Then no, you shouldn’t babble about “reading comprehension”.
Reposting this gem to remind you that you have yet to provide this alleged “strawman” I “created” for nefarious purposes.
I’d also like to emphasize that neither of the posts you quoted above are mine, regardless of your attempt at misdirection.
You have really outdone yourself with this elaborate construction, I’ll give you that, but the fact that you did not quote anything I’ve actually said is really all the explanation anyone would need.
No. If you want to attack people or make fun of their usernames, you need to do it in the Pit. You can’t do it here.
Please print this out and highlight it or something, that may help. Try again, buddy. Ready? Newcomer was talking about CIA control, Ibn was responding about CIA control. I cited that fact. You did not and do not comprehend that fact. So in post 277 you strawmanned Newcomer’s argument and started babbling about “influence”. I don’t feel like citing post 277 to you. The fact that you don’t remember your own words and actually claimed that they were merely an “allegation” means engaging you is only worth my time for entertainment purposes only.
Reading comprehension yet again. I didn’t claim you’d acted nefariously, but from a complete lack of understanding. I appreciate you demonstrating what I said by publicly failing to understand what I said.
You’re proving my point, yet again.
I pointed out what the actual discussion was, with cites. I cited what you misunderstood, proving that the discussion was about control, and proving that your babble about “influence” was based on an inability to comprehend what actually went on. You now think that’s “misdirection”.
If they were mentally retarded and hadn’t actually read the thread, yes. Not sure you should be counting on a bunch of willfully ignorant retards to back you up, though. But you’d be relying on willful ignorance, there. I’m sure even someone who was retarded can hit “control-F” and then type in “influence” to see that your denial is laughable, since I cited what the discussion actually was and that your “influence” nonsense was a strawman of what was actually being discussed.
I’ve seen a lot of contortions over the years on the Dope where people refuse to admit they were wrong and back themselves into a corner. But this may very well take the cake. You could just post “Oh yeah, sorry, I didn’t realize Newcomer was talking about CIA control of the US media. You’re right, that’s totally difference from the government trying to influence the media. Oops.”
Instead you’ve evidently decided that since you’re in a hole, it’s about time to start digging furiously. Go for it.
Here is post #277, without further comment:
Serious question? Do you not understand the what the term “strawman” refers to?
In post #265, newcomer rather stupidly said, or at least strongly implied that he thought that CNN ran the story on the Russian airliner being shot down because they were asked to do so by the US government, but that he couldn’t prove it.
I was floored by the absurdity of newcomer’s comment and responded in post #269.
People will note that anyone with a functioning brain and a competent command of the English language would understand was that I found “extremely preposterous” the idea that the US government “made CNN put that story up.”
You then in post #277 decided to create a strawman and claim that I had said something else.
So yes, you’re the one who rather foolishly decided to accuse me of claiming it “extremely preposterous” that “the CIA would influence the media” when I clearly said no such thing.
Now, yes, in retrospect, I shouldn’t have responded to your post #277 as if it was an intelligent post which accurately represented what I said rather than a jaw-droppingly stupid post that grossly misrepresented what I said, but I decided that I’d give you the benefit of doubt, assume, you’d skimmed newcomer’s post and in reviewing it, would recognize your error.
I see that was a mistake and I won’t make it again.
Thank you for admitting that you had stupidly conflated “the very idea that the CIA would influence the media…[is] extremely preposterous” with “you seem to be saying that the CIA(or if you prefer, just CIA) made CNN put that story up.”
That’s extremely big of you to do so and your error is forgiven.
Anyway, let’s end this hijack and get back to the OP.
Yes, please do.
Thirded. I came here looking for a vigorous debate on what’s happening in Syria, hoping I would see something to help me form an opinion about what should happen; this ridiculous slapfight is not what I wanted.
That’s certainly why I recommended he drop it.
As to the first question, I don’t see anyway that intervening militarily will somehow end the bloodshed or lead to something better.
I think comparisons to Iraq on the part of those objecting to interventions are silly and those to Afghanistan even sillier, but I think that same is true of comparisons to Kosovo.
I suspect this will be more like Darfur where there was lots of hand-wringing and large numbers of people on both sides of the aisle who spouted off about “never again” and “we need to stop genocide” and in the end “we” did nothing and few, if anyone gives two shits about Darfur anymore.
Here’s a short article by an Arab blogger, who I think makes some good points. http://mondoweiss.net/2013/08/dos-and-donts-for-progressives-discussing-syria.html
No, thank you for your forgiveness and willingness to move on after those last two posts! Of course I will allow you to have the final words on the matter! But I must insist that you, in fact, are the bigger one here, as all your posts make abundantly clear.
By the way, I am not a he. Assumptions!
This is kind of how I’m feeling at this point. If I thought there were a way to bomb the everloving shit out of Assad and his command structure without killing a lot of civilians in the process, I’d be pretty okay with that: I tend to think that if someone is going to massacre a bunch of people, being head of government ought to be a point in favor of taking them out, not a reason to avoid it. But it doesn’t look to me as though there’s any way to attack Assad et al without killing more innocent people at the same time.
I want something to happen, but I don’t know what it should be.
Well, Obama not being seen to lose face (after his stupid red line comment), taking yet another opportunity to validate the cost of the US military, bombing the fuck out of a regime and killing a bunch of random people is obv. going to ease his domestic political problems.
Lets not worry too much about what it does for millions of refugees, the fractured state that was Syra or the succour it gives to organiisations like al-Queda, the main concern is Obama doesn’t look weak, he takes care of US vested interests andthat cringworthy bullshit about ‘world policeman’ stirs a real good factor with the flag draping masses.
Actually… maybe not in this case. Public sentiment is running against intervention and Obama going ahead anyway, when he campaigned on an end-the-wars, get-our-troops-out-of-the-Middle-East, will probably NOT ease his domestic political problems. If Congress votes against intervention and he goes ahead anyway that will cause him a lot of trouble at home.
You’re right, I was thinking about France’s position on the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Regardless, has the special relationship been damaged?
The only thing that holds Assad in place is a VERY low degree of viability displayed by “opposition” to hold the country together after the fall.
As soon as “unknown unknowns” become “known unknowns” the bombers will take off.
All other variables are irrelevant.