So how are y'all preparing for the Apocalypse?

[Av Demeisen]

 

[Contrarius]

This cracked me up --

Saying They’re Worried Sick, Five Former First Ladies Ask, “Where’s Melania?”
The FLOTUS FIVE issued an urgent appeal to their successor — “Please send word!”

 

[K.C. Blackbyrn]

Voting for learning the sword and knife next in my weapons class.

 

[Av Demeisen]

"Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."

 

[Fish Owl]

"Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."

As if it is somehow different from Obama's or possible Clinton reaction. Actually what Trump did in Syria proves the simple fact: one man can't change USA foreign policy. It will continue the same course anyway. Until majority of USA elite in both business, politics and military decide otherwise.

 

[RX-79G]

"Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria."

You're going to have to spell this one out for me:

Are you saying that blowing up a military airport as a warning/preventative for a state using War Crime Offense weapons is itself evil?

Why?

 

[Fish Owl]

Why?

Because it worked out really well for Iraq? Or Lybia?

 

[RX-79G]

Because it worked out really well for Iraq?

Iraq was in the middle of a civil war?

I would think the Balkans would make for a better comparison. How did that turn out?

 

[Fish Owl]

Iraq was in the middle of a civil war?

Well, It is now. And back in 2003 there were a lot of talks about Saddam using gas against his own people.

How did that turn out?

Like an ongoing prolonged conflict with delayed uncertain consequences. And a great excuse for any similar military intervention.

 

[RX-79G]

Well, It is now. And back in 2003 there were a lot of talks about Saddam using gas against his own people.

Like an ongoing prolonged conflict with delayed uncertain consequences. And a great excuse for any similar military intervention.

The US should not have invaded Iraq for any of the excuses given at the time. Period.

But I reject the notion that other nation states or the UN should, as a policy, ignore ongoing violence in a region, or ignore brutal governments. WWII was caused by countries trying to mind their own business, and it ended because many of those same governments reversed those decisions.

We can individually debate the efficacy of international policing of civil wars - and that's the way it should be. What is true in Libia is not true in Korea. Each situation is different, so making blanket statements that clearly ignore the successes of international intervention does nothing to advance the discussion.

 

[Fish Owl]

WWII was caused by countries trying to mind their own business

Yeah, like bombing neighbors without League of Nation consent using civil war or discrimination as an excuse. You need to read Japanese papers and political speeches about Mukden Incident. It was all the same “we need to prevent further bloodshed caused by ongoing Chinese civil war. We can’t wait for World to acknowledge the horrible crimes, blah-blah-blah. By limited military intrusion into Chinese territory we will stop fighting, blah-blah-blah”.

is not true in Korea

So Korea is a success? Nation divided on the constant brink of nuclear war with literally no solution and ways of dialogue?

 

[RX-79G]

Yeah, like bombing neighbors without League of Nation consent using civil war or discrimination as an excuse.

Are you simply not aware of Russia's veto role in in the UN Security Council, or are you just pretending that isn't a factor?

You need to read Japanese papers and political speeches about Mukden Incident. It was all the same “we need to prevent further bloodshed caused by ongoing Chinese civil war. We can’t wait for World to acknowledge the horrible crimes, blah-blah-blah. By limited military intrusion into Chinese territory we will stop fighting, blah-blah-blah”.

So you are saying that yesterday's bombing is a prelude to the US forming its own version of Japan's "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and that a few years from now US soldiers will be raping and beheading civilians?

So Korea is a success? Nation divided on the constant brink of nuclear war with literally no solution and ways of dialogue?

Ask either a North or South Korean if the North Korean government is a benefit to Koreans. Are you now arguing that the US/UN didn't interfere enough in the Korean civil war?

 

[Fish Owl]

So you are saying that yesterday's bombing is a prelude to the US forming its own version of Japan's "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and that a few years from now US soldiers will be raping and beheading civilians?

If you leave out raping, beheading testing chemical weapons – Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere is not so different from what Superpowers do today. Using carrier-based bombers and marines for limited military intervention, ending civil wars in their favor and establishing puppet regimes and client states without direct occupation. And using the same excuses for doing so

Ask either a North or South Korean if the North Korean government is a benefit to Koreans. Are you now arguing that the US/UN didn't interfere enough in the Korean civil war?

This logic is somewhat flawed because it is based on presumption that DPRK would look exactly the same if it would control all Korean peninsula. It is “what if” theory. On the other hand you can’t argue that Korean conflict is not over. It is only frozen and only God knows how it would be resolved in the end.

In my opinion countries can't interfere in each other affairs. It will always lead to more deaths and suffering. I think modern peacekeepers are no better than crusaders who wanted to “bring the word of God to barbaric heathens and make them civilized”. Bombing other country because there is a civil war there or abuse of human rights is a deeply flawed logic.

 

[RX-79G]

If you leave out raping, beheading testing chemical weapons – Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere is not so different from what Superpowers do today.

How does one "leave out" those things? What sort of cultural relativism holds that means are so important that we can ignore the ends? That is a frankly absurd statement.

In my opinion countries can't interfere in each other affairs. It will always lead to more deaths and suffering. I think modern peacekeepers are no better than crusaders who wanted to “bring the word of God to barbaric heathens and make them civilized”.

That is certainly one way to look at it. People that have lived under the Pol Pot's of the world generally wouldn't agree with the opinion you're issuing from your comfortably Western prosperity. The fact of the matter is that every country is being heavily influenced in its politics, economics, religion and everything else by the rest of the world. Syria was not an island of isolation until Trump blew up an airfield. Syria didn't invent Sarin on their own, they aren't fighting with Syrian made weapon systems and their government isn't shaped solely by historical Arabian values and structures. They are an active participant in the modern world and have imported technology, infrastructure, bureaucracy and economics from the same global community that now objects to its misuse.

Bombing other country because there is a civil war there or abuse of human rights is a deeply flawed logic.

Turning the bombing of an airfield into a simplistic soundbite doesn't clarify the matter at all. The global community objects to this civil war, and it especially objects to atrocities because ignoring them is the same as advocating them. Destroying an inanimate military resource directly connected to that atrocity is very different than the extremely simplistic quid pro quo you are attempting with "bombing [an]other country". If it was nothing but retaliation, the US would have gassed a pro-Assad community, not destroyed runways.

 

[Fish Owl]

How does one "leave out" those things? What sort of cultural relativism holds that means are so important that we can ignore the ends? That is a frankly absurd statement.

What I meant that I do not want to go further into discussing Japanese war crimes. It is not related directly to this topic. I can easily say that justifying Hiroshima is cultural relativism but I really don't want to go into this sort of discussion. It will be pointless.

Syria was not an island

All you say is true but my point is: even more intrusion will only make things worse.

Destroying an inanimate military resource

Who will benefit the most if Syrian government loses its military potential? Who will use it to their advantage? Who will come to replace current government? How can you be sure that saving several hundred of people from gas attacks won’t cause them to die horribly after ISIS took over Syria? How can you guarantee things won’t end like Iraq and Lybia? Only by more involvement in a civil war that you can’t even understand since it’s too complex even for experts on Middle East.

 

[RX-79G]

What I meant that I do not want to go further into discussing Japanese war crimes. It is not related directly to this topic.

The mindset that produced Japanese imperialism AND those war crimes are the same. You can't separate them as if unconnected.

All you say is true but my point is: even more intrusion will only make things worse.

Is this some truth that goes along with Koreans would have been better off under unified Communist rule? How do you know?

 

[Fish Owl]

The mindset that produced Japanese imperialism

If you really want to go into details - Japanese Imperialism was produced by uninvited Europeans and Americans. Because until their intervention in the end of 19-th century Japan was hardly a threat to anyone.

Is this some truth that goes along with Koreans would have been better off under unified Communist rule? How do you know?

For example we have Vietnam. Continued presence of USA or UN involvement could easily create North and South Vietnam with similar set of problems we have in Korea. Today you say that RoK is better than Vietnam because of their economic success. But what will happen if tomorrow someone pushes the button and the whole Korean peninsula burns? It is clear that one way or another end of Korean War will hurt RoK economics very hard. Even if it will be peaceful by some miracle.

 

[RX-79G]

If you really want to go into details - Japanese Imperialism was produced by uninvited Europeans and Americans. Because until their intervention in the end of 19-th century Japan was hardly a threat to anyone.

America didn't cause Japan's imperialism by events 50 years prior. You might as well blame the Chinese for their cultural influence and inventing gun powder. Japan's isolation was going to eventually end, and release a very innovative and xenophobic nation of warrior culture on the world.

For example we have Vietnam. Continued presence of USA or UN involvement could easily create North and South Vietnam with similar set of problems we have in Korea. Today you say that RoK is better than Vietnam because of their economic success. But what will happen if tomorrow someone pushes the button and the whole Korean peninsula burns? It is clear that one way or another end of Korean War will hurt RoK economics very hard. Even if it will be peaceful by some miracle.

Vietnam is not Korea. North Korea was a puppet government created by the USSR by taking the territory from Japan, just like they did with the Nazis and East Germany or Poland. The world has the problem of the awful, population starving nutjobs of the Kim family to thank the Soviets and China for. An incredibly different situation from the anti-French revolution of Ho Chi Mihn. He originally asked for US help in removing the French, and then found the help elsewhere.

There has never been a time when Korean people chose Communist leaders, and there has never been a country with Soviet imposed rule that stayed Communist after an actual election.

 

[Fish Owl]

and release a very innovative and xenophobic nation of warrior culture on the world.

As if White supremacy ideology and Imperialistic policy of Belgium in Kongo is somehow different from Japanese Imperialism in China.

when Korean people chose Communist leaders

As if Korean people chose RoK government. Until 80th it was no better than DPRK. RoK was led by former Japanese collaborators that imposed their rule with authoritarian methods that eventually led to military dictatorship and junta rule. You tend to idealize RoK comparing its modern economy to DPRK but during the Cold War they were both puppet nations ruled by dictators established by Superpowers. RoK's masters won the Cold War and thus they now enjoy the spoils of victory by comparing themselves with losers.

a country with Soviet imposed rule that stayed Communist after an actual election.

And why should they? USSR lost the Cold War and collapsed. Client state can't exist without it's master.

As I said - there is no point in arguing. We both made our point clear and doubtfully new arguments can change it.

 

[RX-79G]

As if White supremacy ideology and Imperialistic policy of Belgium in Kongo is somehow different from Japanese Imperialism in China.

I don't see how that follows from what you quoted, but I don't see how Belgium's imperialism in Africa compares to Japan becoming a world power and the enormous territories it took over.

As if Korean people chose RoK government. Until 80th it was no better than DPRK. RoK was led by former Japanese collaborators that impose their rule with authoritarian methods that eventually led to military dictatorship and junta rule. You tend to idealize RoK comparing its modern economy to DPRK but during the Cold War they were both puppet nations ruled by dictators established by Superpowers. RoK's masters won the Cold War and thus they now enjoy the spoils of victory by comparing themselves with losers.

They chose their own government, and have since before the end of the Cold War. If the US was a puppet master, the RoK government wouldn't have had as many changes in government.

And why should they? USSR lost the Cold War and collapsed. Client state can't exist without it's master.

Because plenty of countries that chose communism stayed communist after the collapse of the USSR. Cuba, China and Vietnam were all sponsored by the USSR, but didn't end the moment the USSR went away. Communism is a form of government that people will choose for themselves - it isn't always imposed.

As I said - there is no point in arguing. If Syrian government will win in this conflict and turn to USA instead of Russia or Iran you will probably say that Syria is ‘incredibly different situation' and will keep following the updates of USA official propaganda.

Well, I don't know when I started being Mr. USA Propaganda, but the only point I have been trying to make to you is that there isn't a single outcome every time foreign nations intervene. Every example we've talked about had different starting conditions and different outcomes, but you want to make Korea and Vietnam, Belgium and Japan, Syria and Balkans all identical. But they aren't and they never were. Syria has always been the product of outside influence and interference, but you're making it sound like one air strike is going to make a hideous dictatorship with a horrendous civil war worse. It is an awful country and it is hard to believe that they could possibly remain status quo when countries all around the world are taking a very active interest, US or not.