Debate Mansion

   

Tidbits, Trivias... Share what you want II (Page 14)

Post Reply New Post

Page 14 of 37

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 21354

Posted: 01 September 2013 at 11:26am | IP Logged
I am not denying the grave errors made by US foreign policy in the past decade. I do not condone the war in Iraq. But irrespective of Obama's flip flopping or US mistakes, facts are facts and false statements are false statements.

No Other Country is with USA - FALSE.
- France and Turkey decided well before USA

USA wants to Destroy Syria - FALSE
- US course of action is undetermined. Everything else is an ASSUMPTION

There is no proof of using Chemical Weapons - FALSE
- There is ample proof that someone used a nerve gas on civilians

My point is criticize USA all you want. But you don't have to use LIES to do it. Criticize based on FACTS.

Obama backed out of the red line statements - FACT
UK voted not to take action in Syria - FACT
The culprit behind the nerve gas attack is uncertain - FACT
USA has an overtly aggressive and intruding foreign policy - FACT

There is also a temptation to compare Iraq, Libya and Syria. However, each is a unique situation that must be treated in its own merit. Questions we need to ask ourselves though are -

If a regime is oppressive, and the civilians revolt for freedom, and the regime retaliates with inhuman oppression and violence - what is the role and responsibilities of the other sovereign nations of the world? What is the right thing to do - interfere and support those who fight for freedom? Or ignore it - let people fight their own battles? And what if an oppressive regime crushes the voice of the people?

Most sovereign democratic nations today once upon a time themselves revolted against an oppressive regime. It is a tricky catch-22 choice.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

BirdieNumNumcharminggenie

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Tidbits, Trivias... Share what you want II (Page 14)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 8880

Posted: 01 September 2013 at 1:17pm | IP Logged
Ah, Hades so this is how we will dance tonight, here's my take on your Facts!

So, like many ,I lend my ear to Prez O , what caught my eye  most was this-"I am with the machine that was in place before I came to power and will always be with the machine". This machine is the foreign policy of America which is based on the military-industrial complex , which no President , present , past or future can ever change and which unfortunately has not changed with the times.

War on Syria has disintegrated the North Block, barring France or Turkey( who maybe the only one with a legit role in this screenplay) , rest have put their foot down, joining the chorus for the legitimizing the war with a UN mandate or popular public opinion. This is a fact that someone in Obama administration needs to address again. If I recall, McCain categorically mentioned taking action if the red line (use of chemical weapons), even then shying away from a no-air zone over Syria.You may not treat Libya, Iraq Afghanistan or Lebanon in the same space, even I won't suggest that but the fact remains all these areas continue to remain as unstable as before the US intervention or some even more. Lebanon was bombarded by Israel  and the statement from the White House by the eminent Rice mentioned "pangs ( the bloodshed of civilians) " before the creation of " New Middle-East", which in fact turned out to be a consequence of  the inauguration of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. 
Of course the Syrian crisis is affecting the whole of ME but even the ferocious US supporters point towards the real and ground realities which indicate more instability and genocide for civilians in a Post war scenario. The local Govt has erred beyond forgiveness but this is the right moment to get UN and atleast work towards achieving a ceasefire for now. I believe a congregation was proposed in Switzerland, which lacked the support of the Western Block. The point is there has been no concrete proof determining which side used the chemical weapons. This makes war a very flimsy proposition as of now. Another view is that, similarity in the situation of Syria with that of Egypt , Congo and many other ME nations. The civilians in these countries are also been massacred in thousands , so just coz there was more a bullet in the chest or a bomb in the backyard case ,  they get excluded from the US services. And yes I am aware about the more gruesome or heinous perception of CWS. The fact is the world is not just satisfied by " I know who got the weapons" story of US. Another reason for being cautious is war might increase the proliferation of Al-Qaeda in the region.

I might again seem like seeking too much from a body which is loosing credibility before you can even spell the word, but UN and the general assembly should have the last word on the foreign intervention in assisting of a regime change. We just cannot pick and choose the conflicts. We all can waltz around the theoretician of it , the local and real time scenario is far removed from our reasoning. For world peace, a broader , more effective and impartial UN is the need and for that US has to take a back seat. By not seeking the International mandate, it is undermining UN and creating a very polarized world opinion. I might be ignorant here but cite me one recent example where US intervention has reduced bloodshed, nullified human atrocities and provided peace to the region. I rest my case seeking that noble deed!







The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

BirdieNumNumreturn_to_hades

LovelyPlanet

Goldie

LovelyPlanet

Joined: 03 October 2009

Posts: 2172

Posted: 01 September 2013 at 2:00pm | IP Logged

Nobel peace prize laureate Obama should at least once prove that he has done/is doing something for the world peaceConfused.. using military force isn't exactly in line with peace keeping efforts.

Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26981

Posted: 01 September 2013 at 10:54pm | IP Logged
Vladimir Putin has rejected US intelligence claims that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons in Syria. it would be "utter nonsense" for government troops to use such tactics in a war it was already winning... ""That is why I am convinced that [the chemical attack] is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,"" Putin...US intelligence reports are not always right... there is political agenda behind this.  Did the people of this world vote on this? Did the nations of the U.N. come together and pass some law that gave certain countries the authority to play world policeman?The answer is negative and it shows the profound lawlessness of the action that the US is about to embark and the ones that it has already carried out in the near past (Many of whom based upon groundless reasons. Thus even if the US is a global cop, it is most certainly rogue)...


My friend from US told me last day that: 'I accidently switched my TV to the Aljezeera station and now there's a helicopter over my house...' LOL 


Edited by Prometeus - 01 September 2013 at 10:54pm

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 21354

Posted: 02 September 2013 at 10:44am | IP Logged
Originally posted by charminggenie

Ah, Hades so this is how we will dance tonight, here's my take on your Facts!

So, like many ,I lend my ear to Prez O , what caught my eye  most was this-"I am with the machine that was in place before I came to power and will always be with the machine". This machine is the foreign policy of America which is based on the military-industrial complex , which no President , present , past or future can ever change and which unfortunately has not changed with the times.

War on Syria has disintegrated the North Block, barring France or Turkey( who maybe the only one with a legit role in this screenplay) , rest have put their foot down, joining the chorus for the legitimizing the war with a UN mandate or popular public opinion. This is a fact that someone in Obama administration needs to address again. If I recall, McCain categorically mentioned taking action if the red line (use of chemical weapons), even then shying away from a no-air zone over Syria.You may not treat Libya, Iraq Afghanistan or Lebanon in the same space, even I won't suggest that but the fact remains all these areas continue to remain as unstable as before the US intervention or some even more. Lebanon was bombarded by Israel  and the statement from the White House by the eminent Rice mentioned "pangs ( the bloodshed of civilians) " before the creation of " New Middle-East", which in fact turned out to be a consequence of  the inauguration of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. 
Of course the Syrian crisis is affecting the whole of ME but even the ferocious US supporters point towards the real and ground realities which indicate more instability and genocide for civilians in a Post war scenario. The local Govt has erred beyond forgiveness but this is the right moment to get UN and atleast work towards achieving a ceasefire for now. I believe a congregation was proposed in Switzerland, which lacked the support of the Western Block. The point is there has been no concrete proof determining which side used the chemical weapons. This makes war a very flimsy proposition as of now. Another view is that, similarity in the situation of Syria with that of Egypt , Congo and many other ME nations. The civilians in these countries are also been massacred in thousands , so just coz there was more a bullet in the chest or a bomb in the backyard case ,  they get excluded from the US services. And yes I am aware about the more gruesome or heinous perception of CWS. The fact is the world is not just satisfied by " I know who got the weapons" story of US. Another reason for being cautious is war might increase the proliferation of Al-Qaeda in the region.

I might again seem like seeking too much from a body which is loosing credibility before you can even spell the word, but UN and the general assembly should have the last word on the foreign intervention in assisting of a regime change. We just cannot pick and choose the conflicts. We all can waltz around the theoretician of it , the local and real time scenario is far removed from our reasoning. For world peace, a broader , more effective and impartial UN is the need and for that US has to take a back seat. By not seeking the International mandate, it is undermining UN and creating a very polarized world opinion. I might be ignorant here but cite me one recent example where US intervention has reduced bloodshed, nullified human atrocities and provided peace to the region. I rest my case seeking that noble deed!


Contrary to the popular belief, US foreign policy has not been static. But that is irrelevant.

I'm not a supporter of US foreign policy. I don't agree with most of US intervention. My problem is only when people criticize USA based on presumptions and falsities. Also international politics is a "gray" area. USA may not self serving and selfish in their foreign policy, but painting USA as completely "black", a villainous entity is not fair either. Also the truth of the matter is that any country that has the wealth and might to be a military might will act big brother. Most of Europe did it during the era of colonization. Soviet Russia did it when they had clout. US does it now when they have the power. Tomorrow, should India be an economic and military power, I doubt it would be the benevolent Gandhian pacifist.

Specifically focusing on the Syria situation.

1) There is a Catch-22 USA faces. There is a good amount people in the world who thinks USA is a big evil f**k up and should just keep their nose out of other's business. Very valid and wise considering the disasters of past interventions. But there is a good amount of people in the world including Syrian civilians who want US to intervene. The argument being if you intervened for selfish reasons in Iraq, you have the obligation to intervene on moral grounds for us.

There is a significant push for US action within the Middle Eastern region itself http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html?_r=0

So taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes at the drop of a hat, Not taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes only for selfish reasons.

So you see damned if you do, damned if you don't.

2) The nerve gas situation is tricky. There is no proof on who called the attack. It was a year ago when Obama said chemical weaponry would be the red line causing US intervention. So the nerve gas could have been used by anyone who wants US to intervene.  A recently revealed interesting fact is that a UK company maybe selling chemical weaponry to the Syrian government.

Personally, I think it is time for USA to just withdraw and let the Muslim League who are concerned about Syrian civilians come to their aid. In my view the consequences of intervening is far worse than not intervening . 

There is absolutely no US military intervention that has not made things worse in the region. However, can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that things actually could have been peaceful without US intervention. For nations like Russia and China where no one dare question the government we see human rights violations escalate each day and the coverage is muffled and muted. Unless we have a way to turn back time and prevent intervention, we don't have any conclusive evidence that the countries would actually be better off. Without intervention we could potentially have seen massive civil war and genocide, if not now but eventually in the distant future.

Also US foreign policy is not limited to military intervention. There are government run foreign policy arms like USAID and Peace Corps. While the percentage of military expenditure is shameful and the amount of military intervention shocking, the fact also is that no other nation has as many dedicated humanitarian branches as the USA.

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 8880

Posted: 02 September 2013 at 12:28pm | IP Logged
OH my Hadey,  you do such a wonderful number, bring this fun on BA, na!
[/QUOTE

Contrary to the popular belief, US foreign policy has not been static. But that is irrelevant. 
Some day do enlighten me about this. Ofcourse it has got the bouts of change, the simmering passive aggressiveness remains very much present, nothing wrong with that, but I firmly believe time for any single nation to lead the march has long gone. 

I'm not a supporter of US foreign policy. I don't agree with most of US intervention. My problem is only when people criticize USA based on presumptions and falsities. Also international politics is a "gray" area. USA may not self serving and selfish in their foreign policy, but painting USA as completely "black", a villainous entity is not fair either. Also the truth of the matter is that any country that has the wealth and might to be a military might will act big brother. Most of Europe did it during the era of colonization. Soviet Russia did it when they had clout. US does it now when they have the power. Tomorrow, should India be an economic and military power, I doubt it would be the benevolent Gandhian pacifist. 
Absolutely true, as I mentioned somewhere on this forum , I like grey , not the holier than thou avtaar or the villainous hood that people behest on US, what pricks me most is the disrespect of International consensus and the hypocrisy in its implementation.
My point exactly, the power axis has always been in the hands of the one with the max weight in his pocket and grenades in its armor, holds true for the Imperialistic GB, Soviet Union , US or now maybe China. Oh lovely, India did pull a Sri Lanka years back, but then that is totally irrelevant. 
The point is none of these ever did well for the world, it never was the answer to any world problem. So to say that it happened before and it will happen in the future , we cannot give US an excuse pass ( I know you didn't meant it). Economically, politically and geographically world have undergone a big change, now you cannot have a single God Daddy dictating the orders, the voices of countries like Germany, India, Pakistan etc just cannot be submerged by the weight of the  crown. There are multiple power blocks around the globe , so any singular step by US leadership is nothing but complete reckless.

Specifically focusing on the Syria situation.

1) There is a Catch-22 USA faces. There is a good amount people in the world who thinks USA is a big evil f**k up and should just keep their nose out of other's business. Very valid and wise considering the disasters of past interventions. But there is a good amount of people in the world including Syrian civilians who want US to intervene. The argument being if you intervened for selfish reasons in Iraq, you have the obligation to intervene on moral grounds for us. 
Well this is more like opening the can of worms, today it's Syrians,  tomorrow it can be Egyptians, Armenians  or  the horror Kashmiris in India, will US pick the gun and shoot. These scenarios actually question the moral fiber of US foreign policy. It has to draw the " white line" somewhere. You cannot attack a nation selfish reasons or not without International support , unless your sovereignty is threatened. 

There is a significant push for US action within the Middle Eastern region itself http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/world/middleeast/overseas-concern-follows-obamas-new-approach-to-syria.html?_r=0
Ah, FInally you brought the main point out. This is what I eluded in my last post. There is tremendous pressure from Turkey (somewhat justified), Saudi Arabia (too political) for US intervention. These same groups were accused of funding the rebels as well and have way more vested interest than anybody else. There is a whole lot of re-drawing ME noises in that backyard, US is being baited by a "too friendly Saudi" by various backdoor deals. It is this alliance that what held UK to back -paddle, among several others and which has irked many others. The group countries in ME pushing for are are primarily accused for encouraging state actors in Syria.  World doesnt want US to shake hand with this perceived evil.

So taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes at the drop of a hat, Not taking action means being labeled as an aggressive big bully who intervenes only for selfish reasons. 
I think the world will be happier if there was no bullying around in the 1st place. Quoting Peter Parker's uncle -"With great power, comes greater responsibilities" . Rather than citing a catch-22 to the world, why doesn't US strengthen the case in International Justice court, submit the evidences and let a UN lead, US supported Peace keeping force handle the charge. If you want to do the moral job, then atleast wear the right robe.

So you see damned if you do, damned if you don't.

2) The nerve gas situation is tricky. There is no proof on who called the attack. It was a year ago when Obama said chemical weaponry would be the red line causing US intervention. So the nerve gas could have been used by anyone who wants US to intervene.  A recently revealed interesting fact is that a UK company maybe selling chemical weaponry to the Syrian government.
My money on countries within ME!

Personally, I think it is time for USA to just withdraw and let the Muslim League who are concerned about Syrian civilians come to their aid. In my view the consequences of intervening is far worse than not intervening .  
Hadey, it took us this long to finally say- I do , tooLOL, agree ofcourse!

There is absolutely no US military intervention that has not made things worse in the region. However, can you say beyond a reasonable doubt that things actually could have been peaceful without US intervention. For nations like Russia and China where no one dare question the government we see human rights violations escalate each day and the coverage is muffled and muted. Unless we have a way to turn back time and prevent intervention, we don't have any conclusive evidence that the countries would actually be better off. Without intervention we could potentially have seen massive civil war and genocide, if not now but eventually in the distant future. 
This is what i said, today its Syria demanding the moral action by US, what about the rebels in Russia, or even the LGBT groups, would US come to their aid as well.  Or keep away as it's Russia's internal matter. Than why cannot it be Syrian internal matter?The common world perception right now is a US intervention can be bought by right proposition , right or wrong is up for anyone's perception. But this is a possibility which can never be ruled out. Hence like a broken record I say, the world needs an impartial power center, a much independent and stronger UN. An impartial or rational UN action should be taken as the last word. Still there will be murmuring but atleast it will keep things as clear as possible.

Also US foreign policy is not limited to military intervention. There are government run foreign policy arms like USAID and Peace Corps. While the percentage of military expenditure is shameful and the amount of military intervention shocking, the fact also is that no other nation has as many dedicated humanitarian branches as the USA. 
And neutral viewer will always applaud and appreciate humanitarian acts by US and I sincerely hope it continues to do so. But that doesn't mean US foreign policy should actually tilt towards military intervention for any reason without without International support. It's like pardoning Salman for his crimes coz he also does  Being Human 9 terrible Joke, but you catch the drift right).
[/QUOTE]

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

return_to_hades

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 21354

Posted: 02 September 2013 at 1:12pm | IP Logged
^^
Impartial power is somewhat idealistic. It requires a status quo. As long as one or more nations have the power and wealth, things will be tilted in one direction.

As for USA, unfortunately, since Iraq it has embroiled itself in a domino affect. Perhaps one could even say since the Cold War or World War.

The best thing we can do is view things as pragmatic as possible. US is the evil destroyer or US is the benevolent savior as both incorrect views. In the case of Syria, one cannot focus on USA alone. You have to look at everyone - Middle East, Syria, US Allies, Syria allies to see how the plays are shaping. Too many people see it as a binary choice surrounding USA only.

charminggenie

IF-Rockerz

charminggenie

Joined: 28 December 2007

Posts: 8880

Posted: 02 September 2013 at 1:26pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

^^
Impartial power is somewhat idealistic. It requires a status quo. As long as one or more nations have the power and wealth, things will be tilted in one direction.
Exactly as I conceded too idealistic, but not impractical. The whole modus -operandi of UN needs to be revamped. Though I doubt it will happen, why do I sense a big bang before it happens.

As for USA, unfortunately, since Iraq it has embroiled itself in a domino affect. Perhaps one could even say since the Cold War or World War. 
Gulf Wars have always been US's Achilles. It's a passive world war, with too many factions against US. Hence the need to be more cautious.

The best thing we can do is view things as pragmatic as possible. US is the evil destroyer or US is the benevolent savior as both incorrect views. In the case of Syria, one cannot focus on USA alone. You have to look at everyone - Middle East, Syria, US Allies, Syria allies to see how the plays are shaping. Too many people see it as a binary choice surrounding USA only. 
See I belong to the party that dont like the coronation of US in any form, Treat it as a magnificent country without the horns or the wings.
More than US , the changing dynamics in ME interest me, there is too much money, weapons and in-fighting going there. See, the over-enthusiasm of US has brought the spotlight, "it cannot pull a Katrina in bikini" , over the world press!

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Tidbits, Trivias... Share what you want NEW LINK

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

souro 1197 65739 21 March 2013 at 5:12pm
By MP_Radha
Symposium - Speak, Share, Spill your minds

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

return_to_hades 1192 40773 05 December 2010 at 11:16pm
By return_to_hades
Kaho jo kehna hai + share articles / latest News

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 149 150

raj5000 1196 58466 23 July 2010 at 11:05pm
By return_to_hades
Summers in India - NRI experiences - share urs!

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 15

Ice-Thinker 114 7704 30 May 2010 at 6:18pm
By qwertyesque
HOMOSEXUALITY: Share ur views on it...... Beyond_the_Veil 1 794 16 May 2008 at 11:52am
By raj5000

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.