Support NeoGAF

[MadJackChurchill]

Here's that line again. Not rehearsed at all...

So he won't listen to his own intelligence, but he will listen to Putin's. That doesn't sound foolish at all...

 

[danm999]

No, but it's a war that we're not involved in and exacerbating. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (bombing the shit out of everyone)

With that in mind, the idea of "safe zones" is potentially a good idea, yet very risky. It's better than Hillary Clinton's genius "no fly zone idea", at least.

The topic, article and question you were posed isn't ending Western and Russian engagement, it's about ending the Syrian war.

 

[Rentahamster]

The topic, article and question you were posed isn't ending Western and Russian engagement, it's about ending the Syrian war.

Yes, I know, and I gave you my opinion on it.

 

[danm999]

Yes, I know, and I gave you my opinion on it.

Oh I wasn't really too concerned with that, I was just pointing out what you were being asked.

 

[Alucrid]

first syria, then ukraine

right?

 

[Rentahamster]

Oh I wasn't really too concerned with that, I was just pointing out what you were being asked.

What for? Did I not answer adequately?

 

[FlyinJ]

Sean Spicer straight up bolted out if his press conference today without taking a single question. He really didn't want to talk about this

https://youtu.be/tD2pxTZP9iI

 

[MisterFalcon]

This is nice but even if they genuinely wanted to, Putin and Trump cannot end the war in Syria or establish safe zones. The war is being fueled by crowdfunding and regional powers who will back their proxies regardless of what the superpowers want.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I like diplomacy so I'm not going to immediately freak out just over talks.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Yes, I know, and I gave you my opinion on it.

Seems like you dish out a lot of awful opinions in threads these days. From North Korea to Syria, it's like reading the musings of someone who thinks they understand things far better than they seem capable of.

Also, you really suck at statistics. Don't think I forgot that one.

 

[Wanda/Wander]

This is probably why Spicer bolted today

 

[Rentahamster]

Seems like you dish out a lot of awful opinions in threads these days. From North Korea to Syria, it's like reading the musings of someone who thinks they understand things far better than they seem capable of.

Also, you really suck at statistics. Don't think I forgot that one.

I do offer up my opinions a lot, yes. This is a message board after all. I'm not smarter than everyone else. My predictions tend to come true a lot, so take that for what it's worth.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I'm not smarter than everyone else.

That is surprisingly hum...

My predictions tend to come true a lot, so take that for what it's worth.

Oh...

 

[Sanojio]

Our best hope is that any agreement keeps jihadists out of power and leads to a democratization process.

Do you honestly believe that exporting "democracy" is going to work?

 

[foxuzamaki]

I don't get it, he should be separating himself from put in at the moment, is he not aware what's going on?

 

[Rentahamster]

That is surprisingly hum...



Oh...

Is that false?

 

[Lord Frieza]

Is that false?

Lol, no man, you're on a much higher level

 

[Rentahamster]

Lol, no man, you're on a much higher level

That's not answering the question. As an aside, being smart != being right.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

People have been saving they've had good talks with this fucker since the day he got elected. It means Jack shit at this point besides him flip flopping to please whatever side he is speaking with

 

[Lord Frieza]

That's not answering the question. As an aside, being smart != being right.

Okay

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I do offer up my opinions a lot, yes. This is a message board after all. I'm not smarter than everyone else. My predictions tend to come true a lot, so take that for what it's worth.

When I challenged you on your horribly wrong claim that the LAT/USC poll was somehow accurate you doubled down and said you were right. Is that how you rank your predictions? Because if it is, I can see why you think your predictions come true a lot.

 

[Rentahamster]

When I challenged you on your horribly wrong claim that the LAT/USC poll was somehow accurate you doubled down and said you were right. Is that how you rank your predictions? Because if it is, I can see why you think your predictions come true a lot. It's not that you're smarter than everyone else, it's that you act like you are whether you know it or not.

I think it because it happened. You should take a look at that 270 to win thread we had.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think it because it happened. You should take a look at that 270 to win thread we had.

It was one of the worst polls of the entire election for numerous reasons.

 

[danm999]

What for? Did I not answer adequately?

In answering who you deal with to end the Syrian war? Not really.

 

[Rentahamster]

In answering who you deal with to end the Syrian war? Not really.

Well the nature of pulling out so as not to make things worse kinda naturally means you don't really deal with anyone anymore.

 

[danm999]

Well the nature of pulling out so as not to make things worse kinda naturally means you don't really deal with anyone anymore.

Right and I think what people were trying to point out on the first page was ending the Syrian war =/= ending Western involvement in it.

 

[Mohonky]

Our best hope is that any agreement keeps jihadists out of power and leads to a democratization process.

I like your optimism.

 

[Rentahamster]

Right and I think what people were trying to point out on the first page was ending the Syrian war =/= ending Western involvement in it.

In their opinion. In my opinion, our continued involvement inhibits the potential for peace, therefore those two entities are connected, so let's GTFO.

 

[danm999]

In their opinion. In my opinion, our continued involvement inhibits the potential for peace, therefore those two entities are connected, so let's GTFO.

So if the West and Russia pulls out, who wins the Civil War and why does that lead to peace?

 

[Rentahamster]

So if the West and Russia pulls out, who wins the Civil War and why does that lead to peace?

I don't know who wins. What I do know is, that Western meddling in the Middle East historically makes things worse, despite our best intentions. So let's try and take us out of the equation and see what happens. Remove the profit motive for war, and perhaps peace will arise in some form. Or, at the very least, less war. Just the collateral damage saved because of us leaving would be enormous.

 

[danm999]

I don't know who wins. What I do know is, that Western meddling in the Middle East historically makes things worse, despite our best intentions. So let's try and take us out of the equation and see what happens. Remove the profit motive for war, and perhaps peace will arise in some form. Or, at the very least, less war. Just the collateral damage saved because of us leaving would be enormous.

If you don't know who wins, isn't it a little risky to declare it'll lead to peace, or even less war. For example what if ISIS wins and uses the resources it covets in Syria to fuel its expansion elsewhere?

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I'm all down for finding peaceful solutions to things but something sinister is a brewing.

 

[MisterFalcon]

If you don't know who wins, isn't it a little risky to declare it'll lead to peace, or even less war. For example what if ISIS wins and uses the resources it covets in Syria to fuel its expansion elsewhere?

Countless people would be killed but not by Western forces so they don't count. Anything the West does makes it worse.
(worse for people in the West who now feel bad)

 

[Rentahamster]

If you don't know who wins, isn't it a little risky to declare it'll lead to peace, or even less war. For example what if ISIS wins and uses the resources it covets in Syria to fuel its expansion elsewhere?

We dropped 12,000 bombs on Syria last year. If we don't do that this year, that is by definition, "less war". Now, there might be hypothetical more war from others there, but there is guaranteed less war due to us.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/

 

[MisterFalcon]

And all these countries would be at peace without US bombs dropping ?

"Sorry tens of thousands of Kurds and Yezidis about to be exterminated by ISIS, if we were to kill even a single ISIS fighter it would make things far worse for you. When you are marched to a ditch to have your throats cuts be glad no US bombs have been dropped."

 

[Journeywalker]

So if the West and Russia pulls out, who wins the Civil War and why does that lead to peace?

Why would Russia pull out? They have every reason to prop up Assad's puppet dictatorship. Pulling out is pretty much resigning to that fact.

 

[spineduke]

"Safe de-escalation zones" sounds like a sorry excuse to ship those refugees back as soon as possible. Where's George Carlin when you need him

 

[TestOfTide]

seeing as how Trump's number one opponent was a foreign policy expert who ran a $1.2 billion a negative campaign against him for nearly a year and yet she reported to the voting public nothing about this massive conspiracy of treason, it's vaporware; the Democrat's version of Benghazi.

Except for the fact that the CIA and FBI have numerous pieces of evidence supporting this......

Of course I am! You like peace, I like peace. We all like peace.



No more bombing the shit out of the Middle East? Because it's the right thing to do? These are hard questions?

Peace? are you serious? You think what Russia has done in Syria is PEACE?

Literally the only way for Syria to get into a worse situation would be if Putin started dropping literal nukes on the Syrians.

No, but it's a war that we're not involved in and exacerbating. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (bombing the shit out of everyone)

With that in mind, the idea of "safe zones" is potentially a good idea, yet very risky. It's better than Hillary Clinton's genius "no fly zone idea", at least.

The whole "No Fly Zone Idea" was literally proposed as a way to CREATE those "safe zones".

And Syria is not the definition of insanity considering that the whole reason Syria is a mess is because Obama chose NOT to intervene when Assad crossed the Red Line.

I don't know who wins. What I do know is, that Western meddling in the Middle East historically makes things worse, despite our best intentions. So let's try and take us out of the equation and see what happens. Remove the profit motive for war, and perhaps peace will arise in some form. Or, at the very least, less war. Just the collateral damage saved because of us leaving would be enormous.

except the whole issue with Syria was Obama's LACK of intervention.

 

[Ithil]

Those are just the press releases so they can say the phone call was whatever they want it to be, but can you imagine how these phone calls between state heads actually go when one of the two is fucking Trump? How inane, meandering and pointless these calls must be from the perspective of the other leader, even his leash holder Putin?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

"Safe de-escalation zones" sounds like a sorry excuse to ship those refugees back as soon as possible. Where's George Carlin when you need him

They are right there tho, many refugees that only want a safe place are in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey very close to the border.

 

[Rentahamster]

Peace? are you serious? You think what Russia has done in Syria is PEACE?

Literally the only way for Syria to get into a worse situation would be if Putin started dropping literal nukes on the Syrians.

You're responding to a point I didn't make.

The whole "No Fly Zone Idea" was literally proposed as a way to CREATE those "safe zones".

Yeah, increasing our aggressive posture and/or shooting down Russian planes is totally safe.

And Syria is not the definition of insanity considering that the whole reason Syria is a mess is because Obama chose NOT to intervene when Assad crossed the Red Line.

except the whole issue with Syria was Obama's LACK of intervention.

I disagree. There's little to indicate that this is the one special unique time that violence would work perfectly in the way we hope it to. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

 

[Valhelm]

Do you honestly believe that exporting "democracy" is going to work?

The problem with "spreading democracy" isn't that electoral systems are untenable but that the transitionary process usually involves massive brutal violence. The insurgency in Iraq had nothing to do with democracy, but instead resistance toward US occupation. If we let Syrians actually govern themselves, and allow for some continuity of government, Syria will look much more like South Korea after Park Chung-Hee than Iraq after Saddam.

Ideally, the Syrian peace plan would involve an electoral system, amnesty for rebels outside the most radical groups, and secular checks within the constitution to prevent a Morsi figure from destroying Syrian society.

If you don't know who wins, isn't it a little risky to declare it'll lead to peace, or even less war. For example what if ISIS wins and uses the resources it covets in Syria to fuel its expansion elsewhere?

ISIS is essentially a non-entity. They have almost no territory, manpower, money, or international support. At this point, the vast majority Syrians live in government territory. The ~20% that do not are mostly in places held by the Kurdish forces, not anywhere controlled by ISIS or the "moderate" rebel forces. Since the capture of Aleppo from rebel forces, there's been no serious possibility of the anybody but the Syrian government coming out on top. Withdrawal of foreign support for the all sides leads to an invariable government victory.

 

[TestOfTide]

You're responding to a point I didn't make.

Then don't call it peace.

Yeah, increasing our aggressive posture and/or shooting down Russian planes is totally safe.

How do you think those "safe zones" would be enforced?

I disagree. There's little to indicate that this is the one special unique time that violence would work perfectly in the way we hope it to. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

It's not just about the violence. It's about what you do AFTER the violence.

The fuck up with Libya wasn't getting involved. If we had not gotten involved it would have been how Syria is currently doing.

The fuck up was not helping Libya rebuild itself afterwards.

 

[Rentahamster]

The problem with "spreading democracy" isn't that electoral systems are untenable but that the transitionary process usually involves massive brutal violence. The insurgency in Iraq had nothing to do with democracy, but instead resistance toward US occupation. If we let Syrians actually govern themselves, and allow for some continuity of government, Syria will look much more like South Korea after Park Chung-Hee than Iraq after Saddam.

Ideally, the Syrian peace plan would involve an electoral system, amnesty for rebels outside the most radical groups, and secular checks within the constitution to prevent a Morsi figure from destroying Syrian society.

It's kind of funny how the USA talks about spreading democracy and freedom around the world, as if we're the perfect poster boy for it. The same USA that is functionally an oligarchy, has a 9% congressional approval rating, passes laws that don't reflect the will of the people, overthrows actual democracies throughout its history, and just elected someone as its leader who didn't even get the most votes.

 

[TestOfTide]

It's kind of funny how the USA talks about spreading democracy and freedom around the world, as if we're the perfect poster boy for it. The same USA that is functionally an oligarchy, has a 9% congressional approval rating, passes laws that don't reflect the will of the people, overthrows actual democracies throughout its history, and just elected someone as its leader who didn't even get the most votes.

I'm not saying that the US has a perfect history in foreign policy. But I would rather have the US playing the role of global super power than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

 

[Valhelm]

It's kind of funny how the USA talks about spreading democracy and freedom around the world, as if we're the perfect poster boy for it. The same USA that is functionally an oligarchy, has a 9% congressional approval rating, passes laws that don't reflect the will of the people, overthrows actual democracies throughout its history, and just elected someone as its leader who didn't even get the most votes.

"Spreading democracy" is almost always just a pretext for empire-building. Establishing an electoral process in Syria, with Syrian cooperation, is a world away from invading Iraq, deposing its government, banning the only legal party, and then expecting your hastily-built democracy to work without a hitch.

I'm not saying that the US has a perfect history in foreign policy. But I would rather have the US playing the role of global super power than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

eh. The US has such little concern for human rights that I'm not sure if that's true. Instead of asking who needs to be the hegemon, why don't we push for the disassembly of all empires?

 

[Lord Frieza]

I'm not saying that the US has a perfect history in foreign policy. But I would rather have the US playing the role of global super power than a dictatorship like Russia or China.

Some taking both sides are the same to a global scale, man. It's crazy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Then don't call it peace.

You're still talking about something different.

How do you think those "safe zones" would be enforced?

I think that escalating tensions and shooting Russian soldiers is a bad idea.

It's not just about the violence. It's about what you do AFTER the violence.

The fuck up with Libya wasn't getting involved. If we had not gotten involved it would have been how Syria is currently doing.

The fuck up was not helping Libya rebuild itself afterwards.

Our track record doesn't give me confidence that "Oh it's totally gonna work out this time"

 

[HeisenbergLannister]

Putin: do this
Trump: okay daddy. Can I have a Happy Meal?

 

[TestOfTide]

eh. The US has such little concern for human rights that I'm not sure if that's true. Instead of asking who needs to be the hegemon, why don't we push for the disassembly of all empires?

You're not sure about whether you would want a flawed DEMOCRACY as the global super power as opposed to actual DICTATORSHIPS like Russia or China?

I think that escalating tensions and shooting Russian soldiers is a bad idea.

But you aren't answering my question. How do you think a "safe zone" would be enforced when Assad decides to start bombing that "safe zone"?

Our track record doesn't give me confidence that "Oh it's totally gonna work out this time"

What about our Track record with Turkey for decades? What about our track record with successfully helping Europe rebuild after World War 2? Why can't such a strategy work in the Middle East?