tuco
-
Posts
137 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by tuco
-
-
President of the most powerful military in the world informs another president of very powerful military about military action over Twitter? I guess I am out of touch. What do I expect of Mr. Trump? I avoid paying attention to him whenever I can.
I would rather Mr. Trump to call or visit Mr. Putin and talk about it as adult, intelligent and educated people.
9 minutes ago, zapatos said:How exactly is your plan "gonna change a lot" in Syria?
If you are going to criticize the plans of others because it won't accomplish much, it's kind of important that your plan would accomplish much.
I do not have such plan. See my posts on previous pages for more details.
And let me repeat. I can criticise simply because the action in question is open to criticism and I am not the president of anything so I do not need to have any plan. Make me president, give me few weeks and I will present you with a plan but I can tell you right now, as I mentioned in my previous posts, I would try to become part of the Astana process.
0 -
What do you mean? According to most let's say, experts, people who have much better understanding of the issue than any of us, Assad won the civil war. So unless the US, or someone else, will invade, its likely Syria's (civil) war will end in near future. That is why I asked before: What is the US gonna do, realistically? I was told .. kick in the balls. Hmm that is gonna change a lot, not.
0 -
Well, I don't use Twitter and I don't have ambitions to lead or command anything, however, I would wait for an investigation (that would prevent Russia from using rhetoric cited above among other things) and I would not escalate tensions (I prefer de-escalation and diplomacy). I would also not signal what I was gonna do, with regard to military actions, next.
More importantly, I would care about Syrians through the whole conflict and not only when some of them die in a chemical attack. As I noted, killing civilians is unacceptable by any means and in my mind, chemical weapons are not my "red line". My "red line" is human suffering of any kind.
Criticising? He sounds to me like 11 years old. That is a description, admittedly in negative connotations, and though I could use more sophisticated description, it would still be in negative connotations simply because I do not believe anything positive can come out of launching "nice, and new, and smart" missiles.
0 -
1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:
I was talking about the women's rights movement and some of the things it has accomplished, and the subject of women not being required to register for the draft came up.
Should women be required to register for the draft?
If so, should they get leniency in assigned roles, such as not being assigned to combat roles if they opt out of it?
Should .. well, I can image referendum about this, which would determine this "should". It's certainly "doable": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces
0 -
1 hour ago, StringJunky said:
I agree with you but, on the other hand, he's only thinking like people really think but he''s doing out in the open. I can assure you, my thoughts regarding Assad are not thought of in terms of the UK Queens English
Out of curiosity, what exactly are you thinking, with regards to said tweet?
QuoteRussia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!
I can tell you what I am thinking. This statement comes from an angry 11 years old.
0 -
If Mr. Trump was not the president of the US nobody sensible would pay attention to him.
Back on topic: Russia vetoes US resolution on Syria chemical weapons probe
QuoteAddressing the Security Council, Vassily Nebenzia, the Russian ambassador to the UN, said: "Why do you need this mechanism when you have already appointed the guilty party before the investigation?"
That is kind of hmm clever rhetoric, innit?
0 -
I see, thanks. Well, that
ends the threadanswers the OP or?0 -
The point where the cost outweighs the benefit.
btw can you point me to where I can read about this cut-off because I have not heard about it before.
0 -
The real question, to me, is who gets to decide this point, respectively who would want to be the decider?
0 -
For those interested in let's say broader analysis of the situation in Syria see this blog: Syria Comment - http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/
For example here: A Sustainable United States Policy for North Syria, the Kurds, Turkey and the Syrian Government – by Landis and Barber
QuoteU.S. accomplishments in the region now stand thus: No regime change has been effected in Syria. Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq all have pro-Iranian governments and Iran has more influence in the Levant/Iraq than ever before. By promoting Kurdish nationalism to “rollback Iran,” the U.S. has pushed its ally Turkey into the sphere of Russian influence and caused Turkey’s interests to align with those of Damascus. And finally, even the sole partner the U.S. has in the area—the Kurds—are now upset because they’ve lost one of their important homelands in Syria. Such is the price of a policy based around an obsession with Iran.
0 -
On another board, there was an alleged Syrian who came into a thread about the Copenhagen giraffe outrage - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/09/danish-zoo-outrage-giraffe-marius - and said something like: You people got priorities fucked up. In my opinion, s/he was right.
0 -
44 minutes ago, iNow said:
I suspect a combination of approaches will be required, and none are certain to achieve success.
First, this needs to be a global effort, not directed by US in isolation. Second, we need to strike their planes (basically destroy their entire air force) and setup no fly zones. Third, we need to setup refugee protection so people can be safe while other paths play themselves out. Fourth, we need to put economic pressure on those who have been supporting Assad so they no longer have his back. There are a few to whom this applies, but Russia is obviously a major one. If Putin stops supporting Assad, Assad stops having power. That's really the biggest obstacle I can see. Fifth, if Assad is ousted, a leader with the respect of their people will need to take office and they will need help rebuilding and strengthening a broken country. This will take over a decade, and nobody wants to get into another middle east boondoggle or do "nation building" again so the support is probably lacking.
Your core point is right on. The will isn't there to follow-through. It's certainly possible, but we're so busy being distracted by other things that it's unlikely.
Perhaps an alternative option that would be simpler is to just open more refugee acceptance opportunities across all of the other countries in the area (like Jordan has done, but everywhere) and let the people flow out of Syria like water through a hole, but the support isn't there for that, either. There's too much extremist right-wing isolationism and xenophobia right now, so this last approach could even lead to worse outcomes like triggering another world war.
So, we toss a few bombs over and then start playing candy crush again. Sad.
The interesting part of this scenario is Trumps response will send a signal to Iran and N.Korea where he really wants to make a legacy. If he shows weakness, then his negotiations with those other nations crumble. The question is how does he decide to show strength and what does that ultimately turn into? Your guess is as good as mine.
Top U.S. general: Fair to say Assad "won" Syrian civil war - https://www.axios.com/top-us-general-not-too-strong-to-say-assad-has-won-syrian-war-1520967906-fd26dca0-108d-4578-8721-b5f0d135083f.html
To me, accepting this is the starting point.
No fly zone has to be agreed by Russia as Russia can veto.
Refugee camps are not a long-term solution. In this regard, who is "we"? You or me? Apparently, my fellow citizens are not willing to let any Syrian refugees into the country. So who will take them? Besides, refugee camps are looming catastrophe as kids are not getting education, adults cannot work, conditions are far from decent etc.
Not sure about economic pressure, sanctions, as in my opinion they showed mostly ineffective in past, recently after the Crimea affair.
No argument about helping to rebuild. After all, our companies will not do it for free so I imagine they are eager to get some juicy contracts.
---
btw what you are suggesting is about 6 or 7 years late.
And personal note, if my kid was killed by chemical attack or conventional or a sniper or died from hunger or lack of basic medicine, I am not sure it would make much difference to me which one it was. Seems to me, the chemical attack is for some like waving a red cloth in front of a bull. Not sure the dead are as outraged as some of us are.
0 -
49 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
It's showing that the world is adjudicating as to what is not permissible.
Right, so does a joint statement, for example. If you believe that launching rockets from a ship, like last time, is the proverbial kick in the balls and is more effective than a joint statement, then I nor anyone else will be able to convince you otherwise. To me its more like a spit on shoes but that is just my opinion.
Approach through the UN is problematic in the same sense Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. There is the veto.
0 -
13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:
That's it.
Right, but what does in mean, in realpolitik terms?
I can understand the outrage. I can even agree that violence against a tyrant is justified. But how does outrage or kick in the balls help to end the violence in Syria? Let's not forget, this is not about us, what we feel or think, this is about millions of Syrians in the first place.
In other words, what you gonna do about the despot? Seriously, I am all ears.
0 -
2 hours ago, Ten oz said:
In my mind what might happen is more relevant if the word realistically is attached. Considering the current administrations posture toward Iran I can't picture an agreement on Syria involving them. In the past Russia has denied Assad is using chemical weapons and is also Assad's primary source of such weapons. They (Russia) are not honest brokers in this. The more natural current allies of the U.S. are Germany, France, and Italy as those countries have been taking in refugees and have a desire to see an end to war. What the U.N. can do is act as a notary so that clear position is acknowledged. The U.S. with the support of Germany and etc clearly outline a course of action if and when chemical weapons are used again. It seems ridiculously simple but at present time,at least here in the U.S., there simply isn't a clear position known as it relates to Syria and Assad. First step is to develop a position.
5As the article I linked mentioned Geneva, under the auspices of the UN, is in comatose. The Astana process seems to be the realistic way forward at the moment.
I cannot comment on the US position though, with regards to peace in Syria, I do not think its determinant. My personal observation is that the US, populace, is not interested in Syria until chemical weapons are used and then there is short and loud outrage followed by disinterest again.
My position, which is pretty much irrelevant, is as follows. To find out what Syrians want would be best determined in free elections, which cannot happen while there is a civil war. Thus end the violence asap and go from there. There are many issues to solve and war crimes by Assad are just one of them. There is Kurdish interest, there is reconciliation of various parties involved in the civil war, there are foreign militants etc.
0 -
I was not asking what Mr. Trump, amazing how one man determines for 300mil, I was asking what the US can realistically do? Where realistically means: In a way that demonstrates a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. I would say nothing.
In my opinion, sensible would be to work with the others - Putin, Erdogan, Rouhani - to end the civil war as quickly as possible and go from there. What can the UN, as you suggested, realistically do?
0 -
Regardless of what anyone can imagine, realities seem to be that Assad will stay in power. And I ask again, what will the US do, realistically?
0 -
I am led to believe that the solution for Syria is diplomatic. Removing Assad from power seems out of question.
Putin, Erdogan, Rouhani extend circle of trust in Syria
QuoteWith regard to what the Trump administration may do next, James Dobbins and Jeffrey Martini of RAND suggest that “the United States could offer to fully withdraw its forces from Syria and normalize relations with the government in Damascus once all foreign militias have also left the country. Assad has won the civil war. If he wants to keep Russian and Iranian advisers, there is little to stop him. But Hezbollah fighters should return to Lebanon, and the thousands of other Shiite militias should return to Afghanistan and the other lands from whence they came. If they do not and instead they remain and bring their families, the ethnic makeup of the country will be permanently altered and Israel will permanently face an Iranian proxy on a second front.”
What can the US administration do? Launch rockets again?
0 -
AAA statement on race, used as in OP, is sometimes interpreted as an act of political correctness rather than scientific consensus.
OP starts with:
QuoteThe AAA state that race was developed by Europeans to justify slavery. They present some scientific arguments to argue that race is not a valid biological concept.
0 -
I can only assume as I noted.
Such assumption is based, again, on drawing a historical parallel from personal experience from a country belonging to the Soviet Bloc during the late 80's. People were able to receive a terrestrial radio broadcast from the West (RadioFreeEurope) or even television broadcast if they lived near the border with Austria or West Germany. In addition, various printed materials were available to an admittedly small group of people, which were either smuggled in from the West or printed in small editions by individuals. At that time satellite broadcast was not available nor was the internet so I would assume access to information could be somehow easier than in 80's.
For more see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming_in_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_North_Korea
However, from the little I know about NK the disconnect, you mentioned, there seems to be much greater than it was in the former Soviet Bloc, so it's hard to tell how informed NK populace really is.
The system, in the former Soviet Bloc, let's say from 70's was not held in place mainly by propaganda but by power - secret police, Soviet military, legal system.
0 -
Since "common attitude" is usually determined by an opinion poll, even better by kind of election, I would be surprised if it was known. As for the NK soldier anecdote, it might as well be close to reality, but one swallow does not make spring.
While there seems to be a major disconnect with reality indeed, if we were to go by historical parallel Deutsche Demokratische Republik - Bundesrepublik Deutschland, it is perhaps quite possible that Koreans are still one nation with all perks that come with it.
I would even think that many, if not majority, of NKs are aware of "the truth", just they can't do anything about it.
0 -
12 hours ago, Ten oz said:
The progression and history of all evolutionary processes insisting known so how could an end-direction be determined? Teleonomy is speculative. I can see a car on a road and understand what a car is but that doesn't mean I know where it is going. For that matter drivers of cars are always sure where they are going. Guessing, even educated guessing, is a subjective endeavor.
Robert Wright in Nonzero The Logic of Human Destiny puts it this way:
QuoteSome people may consider it cheating to use the word "destiny" when you mean not "inevitable" but "exceedingly likely." Would you consider it cheating to say that the destiny of a poppy seed is to become a poppy? Obviously, a given poppy seed may not become a poppy. Indeed, the destiny of some poppy seeds seems—in retrospect, at least—to have been getting baked onto a bagel. And even poppy seeds that have escaped this fate, and landed on soil, may still get eaten (though not at brunch) and thus never become flowers.
Still, there are at least three reasons that it seems defensible to say that the "destiny" of a poppy seed is to become a poppy. First, this is very likely to happen under broadly definable circumstances. Second, from the seed's point of view, the only alternative to this happening is catastrophe—death, to put a finer point on it. Third, if we inspect the essence of a poppy seed—the DNA it contains—we find it hard to escape the conclusion that the poppy seed is programmed to become a poppy. Indeed, you might say the seed is designed to become a poppy, even though it was "designed" not by a human designer, but by natural selection. For anything other than full-fledged poppyhood to happen to a poppy seed—for it to get baked onto a bagel or eaten by a bird—is for the seed's true expression to be stifled' its naturally imbued purpose to go unrealized.
1more here: YOU CALL THAT DESTINY? - http://www.nonzero.org/intro.htm#grandiosity
Let me just note that Robert Wright is not a scientist, Nonzero is pop science, and while his opinions do not necessarily represent mine, I like the way he thinks about things.
1 -
Quote
Consider some observer traveling from point A to point B. At the same time this observer leaves A, a light beam is sent out towards the destination, B. This light travels in the area of fairly flat space-time outside of any effects that might be caused by the method our observer uses to travel from A to B. If the observer ends up at B in time to see the light beam arrive, then the observer is said to have traveled "faster than light".
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html#sec:ftlnotes
edit: I guess I should note why I quoted this piece. The following quote from the same article explains it nicely:
QuoteNotice that with this definition we don't care where the observer is when he or she does the traveling. Also, if some space-time distortion is used to drive the ship, then even if the ship itself doesn't move faster than light within that distortion, the ship still travels faster than the light which is going through the normal, flat space-time that is not effected by the ship's FTL drive. Thus, this ship still fits our definition of FTL travel.
1Perhaps it's obvious, perhaps not but it's imo important to consider that FTL does not necessarily mean moving faster than .. in an ordinary sense.
0 -
First let me say that our, Czech, governance is, in general, the opposite of efficient, competent, transparent and for the people governance but it is rather a self-serving machinery of opportunists.
However, to answer the question in OP: Yes, important roles in the structure of ministries (we do not have agencies) are changed according to the political will of election-winning parties. The official reason is that the heads of ministries, ministers, want to have around people whom they can trust, though I think there is another one. Since parties function like corporations - where voters are customers, product are promises, and goal is to grow - they need to reward people who work for them with cozy government jobs, where they can capitalize on opportunities provided by such jobs - access to information, government tenders, ability to change legislation, contact with lobbyists etc.
While the EU requires from its member to have "Civil Service Law", partly to prevent the negatives mentioned in OP (discontinuity, lack of a long-term goal, instability) , its implementation is up to each member state and in my opinion does not work very well over here.
0
Syria's War Nearing Resolution?
in Politics
Posted · Edited by tuco
Syria, Deterrence of Chemical Weapons and U.S. Policy in the Middle East – By Joshua Landis
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/syria-deterrence-of-chemical-weapons-and-u-s-policy-in-the-middle-east-by-joshua-landis/
So the way I understand it.
- Accept Assad won
- Do not abandon Kurds
- Tolerate Iran and Russia in the region
- Do not send new, nice and smart