Meanwhile, in Syria

[mr friendly guy]

Perhaps you can actually try addressing the words on the screen instead of what you think is written there.

Oh that's rich coming from you. Lets addressed the words on the screen shall we?

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

And I asked you to back that up. You failed.

I did also point out even if my country was strongest, I wouldn't want it to play world's policemen for various reasons. You seem to be more interested in talking about that than backing up the contentious point that "most citizens" would prefer their country to be the strongest on the planet. So ask once again, got any numbers to support that contention.

[Metahive]

Perhaps you can actually try addressing the words on the screen instead of what you think is written there. Wanting your country to be one of the most powerful and able to exert its will easily is not the same as being a busybody in Shitholeastan, unless you actually have a good reason for being a busybody in Shithoelastan. Achieving that status is one of the few, realistic ways to prevent your country from being someone else's chew toy.

Y'see, the problem is it's those countries who harbor such a need for looking super-awesomely powerful-strong badass due to deep-running feelings of insecurity that tend to not mind other people's business and think they should meddle everywhere.

[K. A. Pital]

The only person projecting here is you Stas. Small, weak and largely peaceful nations like Luxembourg can afford to be like that because they are client states allies of not just a superpower but arguably the most powerful at this moment in time and enjoy the protection for being a member of America's Auxilia NATO. Those who aren't members of the cool kids club or at least providing a decent service to them are riding on the hope that they're too unimportant, have nothing of value worth invading over, and/or are too distant to reasonably invade. Which admittedly is a good situation conducive to that type of thinking until the moment said situation no longer exists for XYZ reasons, then, well, sucks to be you.

Wow. I like you, but that is nonsense. Not every independent state is a "client state". Whose client state is independent Ireland that kicked British ass? Whose "client state" is Singapore that got independence not just from Britain but also from Malaysia? Whose client state is Germany and do you really think it is incapable of taking good care of its subjects?

You are simply parroting imperialist bullshit coming probably from Project for a New American Century or some other right-wing stink-tank.

Yes, rather be unimportant than being ashamed of citizenship of an idiotic country that invades everyone around at a whim with flimsy reasons.

Your views are abhorrent to me.

[Balrog]

Perhaps you can actually try addressing the words on the screen instead of what you think is written there.

Oh that's rich coming from you. Lets addressed the words on the screen shall we?

Most citizens would prefer the country in which they reside in is one of the strongest on the planet and is able to exert its will at will, with all the benefits (as they perceive it) that come with attaining such a position.

And I asked you to back that up. You failed.

Are you seriously doubting that people would prefer that their country was so strong that it wouldn't be subject to the deprivations of other countries' will? That, if it chose to implement a policy (for good or ill) which they agreed with, another country can't swoop in and go "Nuh uh, not gonna let you"? I mean, I suppose I could go look up studies supporting that view, they're probably kept in the same database which shows most people enjoy fair weather and most people like eating their favorite foods.

I did also point out even if my country was strongest, I wouldn't want it to play world's policemen for various reasons.

That's not what I said though and you know it, it just doesn't conform to the type of strawman you wish to knock over.

Y'see, the problem is it's those countries who harbor such a need for looking super-awesomely powerful-strong badass due to deep-running feelings of insecurity that tend to not mind other people's business and think they should meddle everywhere.

And? Did I deny that such abuse wasn't possible? However, if given the choice between living in a superpower which is invading a smaller country for bullshit reasons, and living in a country being invaded by a superpower for bullshit reasons, I know which choice I would prefer. And I imagine I know what most other people would choose as well (though perhaps I ought to find a study for that too! )

Wow. I like you, but that is nonsense. Not every independent state is a "client state".

If they aren't, then its only because of one of the previously-indicated reasons, not because of some intrinsic value of being small, weak and/or peaceful.

Whose client state is independent Ireland that kicked British ass? Whose "client state" is Singapore that got independence not just from Britain but also from Malaysia? Whose client state is Germany and do you really think it is incapable of taking good care of its subjects?

Ireland used to be independent until they were conquered by their stronger neighbor, and only recently regained that independence after several hundred years of dominance when the cost of maintaining that possession became too high (and issue with their conquerors still remains over the northern part of that island). They currently enjoy the fact that their relations with their former conquerors and their immediate neighbors are peaceful at the moment and enjoy a close relationship with the preeminent superpower. There are no eternal friends though (a couple hundred years ago the US and GB were at war with each other, now they have a "special relationship") and if/when that situation changes Ireland would be in no position to defend itself.

Singapore, which started as an evil imperialist colony, gained independence due to the magnanimity to its founding superpower and the fact that Malaysia decided it wasn't worth it to try and hold on to them (though not before some lovely race riots broke out and continued strains between the two). Their current independence, such as it is, is helped in no small part by their close relations with the US, including allowing the US to use their facilities to help in its imperialistic bullshit dickwaving.

Germany used to be strong enough to have client states of its own, until even greater powers smacked it around a couple of times and, for a few decades, was actually split it in two for use as proxies in the contest between the two strongest superpowers at the time. At the current time their defense is guaranteed by their membership in NATO, and they have regained enough power of their own to have tremendous influence on the domestic governance of its smaller and weaker neighbors ("You better make these spending cuts or no more moneies for you!")

You are simply parroting imperialist bullshit coming probably from Project for a New American Century or some other right-wing stink-tank.

Fuck right-wing think tanks and fuck you for trying to lump me with them rather than face facts.

Yes, rather be unimportant than being ashamed of citizenship of an idiotic country that invades everyone around at a whim with flimsy reasons.

The problem is that unimportance is entirely relative. Very quickly a location of no importance in the ass-end of nowhere could suddenly become very important for one or more greater powers, then suddenly you find the bombs dropping on your house or one of your country's provinces develops a strong desire to become "independent."

Your views are abhorrent to me.

The world is abhorrent. International relations are basically just anarchism/libertarianism on a grand scale. The only difference is that the current great powers are more magnanimous than in the past.

[Metahive]

And? Did I deny that such abuse wasn't possible? However, if given the choice between living in a superpower which is invading a smaller country for bullshit reasons, and living in a country being invaded by a superpower for bullshit reasons, I know which choice I would prefer. And I imagine I know what most other people would choose as well (though perhaps I ought to find a study for that too! )

False dichotomy. The world isn't all bullies and victims you know. Also, who says living in the bully country would actually be of superior quality? Maybe Dictator Strongballs doesn't like your face and you end up in the Gulag because Ballsyland can't have strange faces showing themselves in public.

North Korea is such a nation that sees the constant need to stroke its own ego. Would you rather live there or in South Korea where they aren't constantly testing nuclear devices near their own population?

[K. A. Pital]

I don't even know what to say. I'd rather be a citizen of Ireland or Korea (which have themselves been invaded countless times over) than the citizen of whatever nation is invading everyone around them. And yes, I'd risk my "cold spot" turning hot because there's a bunch of dicks in the governments of powerful nations that really buy all that social darwinism crap and are at the level of a fucking pithecantropus.

That's enough for this "would you not rather be a citizen of the invader?" shit. And once again thanks to the low level of discourse, I leave.

[Simon_Jester]

I think most people would prefer that their nation be secure from invaders... but in large sectors of the civilized world, people sensibly prefer to accomplish this through collective security and making an investment in international peace and the reduction of tensions.

So I agree that this "better to be a citizen of the conqueror" stuff is absurdity. I may criticize certain nations for failing to spend enough money on their defenses, to the point where it undermines their ability to participate in collective defense of their own region against an aggressor. But I would not want to see these countries becoming aggressors in turn.

Moreover, becoming an aggressor is not a good way to keep your country safe, looking at the historical record. Being an aggressive warlike nation is a bit like being a drug-dealing criminal. The average 'street level' warlord doesn't do very well, while a handful of very powerful and successful imperialists at the top of the pyramid reap great benefits. Among other things, by slapping down most of the other aggressors, and in particular by slapping down the most blatant aggressors so that people will tell themselves "Gee, living under the American hegemony is humiliating, but at least they're not Saddam Hussein."

[Balrog]

Since Stas left I shan't bother with his reply.

False dichotomy. The world isn't all bullies and victims you know.

No, but at the end of the day there are very, very few ways for a country on the international stage to guarantee it's safety except through strength, or at the very least projecting enough strength to force others to reconsider.

Also, who says living in the bully country would actually be of superior quality?

None, necessarily. Yet the situation in the invader would have to be incredibly difficult to not choose that over an invadee which is currently an active warzone or whose government has collapsed and left behind anarchy. The benefits of leaving the invader to go live in a smaller, weaker, but more welcoming country would be the logical choice if the situation was too unbearable but again you would want to weigh such a decision against the possibility of said country becoming a target in the future.

North Korea is such a nation that sees the constant need to stroke its own ego. Would you rather live there or in South Korea where they aren't constantly testing nuclear devices near their own population?

Except the situation between Best Korea and South Korea is not a straightforward strong-weak one. Arguably South Korea could defeat the North all on its own, leaving aside its current friendship with America Fuck Yeah! who would rain all kinds of shit on the North if it came to it while suffering none to minimal relative damage in return. So the fact that the South is militarily strong and enjoys far better standards of living makes it the easy choice between the two. Yet it is only because the North has sufficient strength of its own - again ignoring a (strained) relationship with China - that they have avoided becoming a target of the South and their American imperialist friends.

I think most people would prefer that their nation be secure from invaders... but in large sectors of the civilized world, people sensibly prefer to accomplish this through collective security and making an investment in international peace and the reduction of tensions.

Collective security has its benefits but also its weaknesses - as we're seeing with the breakup of the EU, there's no guarantee that an alliance which is protecting you right now will last long enough to protect you in the future.

So I agree that this "better to be a citizen of the conqueror" stuff is absurdity. I may criticize certain nations for failing to spend enough money on their defenses, to the point where it undermines their ability to participate in collective defense of their own region against an aggressor. But I would not want to see these countries becoming aggressors in turn.

Well, considering I said nothing about everyone wanting to become an aggressor, I'm not sure what you're arguing against?

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, you're talking about nations "becoming the hegemon" (I'm not saying that's a direct quote, that's a summary). To do that, you have to become the aggressor. You cannot develop the ability to randomly intervene in whatever foreign country irritates you this week unless you are using that ability often enough to get practice at it.

So your entire position of "better to be RAR STRONG" is meaningless unless you also embrace military aggression... and military aggression and the emphasis on "HARD POWER AAAARGH" doesn't actually do much good for the nations that seek it out.

Meanwhile, collective security has a pretty damn good track record and fails mainly when one or more of the participants starts getting stupid- but all schemes for protecting your country fail when people get stupid. That's not a unique weakness of collective security.

[Balrog]

Thing is, you're talking about nations "becoming the hegemon" (I'm not saying that's a direct quote, that's a summary). To do that, you have to become the aggressor. You cannot develop the ability to randomly intervene in whatever foreign country irritates you this week unless you are using that ability often enough to get practice at it.

Incorrect, that was not the premise of my argument, nor does becoming a hegemon (whether globally or on a smaller scale) require overt aggression or "randomly intervening" in other countries. To go back to the North Korea example, they obviously haven't been gallivanting around the globe bringing freedom to the less fortunate for the past few years, yet clearly they are not so weak that South Korea would want to risk finishing the war and finally dealing with them for good and all

Meanwhile, collective security has a pretty damn good track record and fails mainly when one or more of the participants starts getting stupid- but all schemes for protecting your country fail when people get stupid. That's not a unique weakness of collective security.

It does increase the chance for stupidity to happen though when more than one participant is involved, and depending on the nature of the collective security agreement the ability to rectify said stupidity may be limited by those who didn't make the stupid decision but are nevertheless affected by it.

[cosmicalstorm]

Russia is hitting Syria very hard in the past few days. Bomb raids not seen since Vietnam?

[cosmicalstorm]

Russia's Putin talks of 'next phase' in Syria military operation
Sat, Nov 21 00:43 AM GMT

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Moscow's military campaign in Syria to date has not achieved enough and a next phase is needed, Russian news agencies quoted President Vladimir Putin as saying on Friday.

"Our objectives are being fulfilled, and fulfilled well," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted Putin as saying during a video conference with military officials.

"But for now that is not enough to cleanse Syria of rebels and terrorists and to protect Russians from possible terrorist attacks," he said.

"We face a lot of work and I hope that the next phases will be conducted at the same high level, as professionally, and will produce the result we expect."

(Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin; Writing by Christian Lowe; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/id ... 1?irpc=932

[cosmicalstorm]

The Onion

Desperate Obama Just Wants To Know Who To Give Weapons To In Order To Stop ISIS
‘Please, Just Tell Me Who To Arm And I’ll Do It,’ President Says

WASHINGTON—Saying the shipments were just sitting there all ready to go, a desperate President Obama stated Monday that as soon as someone lets him know who to give arms to in order to defeat ISIS, he will immediately begin doing so. “The U.S. stands ready to address the threat of violent extremism, so if I could just get the name of a person or a group that I can supply with weapons to stop ISIS, I promise I’ll get a whole big shipment to them ASAP—all I need is a name,” said a visibly exasperated Obama, explaining that he had “tons of guns” he could send and vowing that he would “keep them right on coming” for as long as needed until the situation was resolved. “Automatic rifles, RPGs, mortars—we’ve got all of that. So if someone could please tell me the name of a city to drop them off in, or even a region will work, or, you know, just point to somewhere on a map, I swear I can get all those things there in a few hours. Seriously, just let me know.” The president added that if he didn’t get an answer soon, he would simply go ahead and airdrop a crate of M16s and ammunition every half mile or so across the greater Middle East and just hope for the best.

[Purple]

Did you just seriously cite the onion... well seriously? For real?

Sanity has left the building.

[cosmicalstorm]

It's a satire site if you didn't know.

White phosphor bombs over Idlib. (Sfw, no gore)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=743_1448117022

[Broomstick]

My first though was, isn't that sort of weapon banned for use against civilian areas?... then I remembered, oh, yes, Syria, that ship sailed awhile ago.

Horrific.

[Channel72]

White phosphor bombs over Idlib. (Sfw, no gore)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=743_1448117022

That's not even an ISIS target. That's just Russia bombing another Jihadist anti-Assad (and also anti-ISIS) faction which is much closer to Syrian government controlled territory.

Dammit Russia, nobody cares about those guys...

[cosmicalstorm]

Russia has fired additional cruise missiles in the past days, some videos of fly-byes, no gore.

Firing sequence at sea, might be pre filmed:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5bc_1448077460

Fly by:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e55_1448140141
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab1_1448152583

Landings:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=141_1448026285
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d1c_1448077222

I must say a part of me is delighted to see the Saudi/Qatar backed coalition be forced back. The Saudis are backing out Yemen too. If the oil price remains low the kingdom could come falling down. Nothing would be better for the world and Islam in general than to see that Wahabbi poison well implode.

I would toast with champagne.

Not that Assad is a nice guy. But I prefer Saddam, Assad, Gaddafi. I wish they were still alive, that regime change neocon bullshit is some of the worst policy that I have seen in my lifetime.

[Block]

You realize that OPEC are the ones keeping oil prices low to kill off fracking companies right? Saudi Arabia planned for this, they have huge cash reserves and the ability to instantly drive up oil prices when those run low.

[cosmicalstorm]

From what I hear the kingdom is in trouble due to expensive habits. They were drivers for this but the current situation with continuous low prices and Russian intervention was not part of that plan. The Yemen op was also a pretty sloppy affair.

Lets hope they crash and burn.

[Broomstick]

One of the world's largest producers of oil, a resource our global civilization is utterly dependent on, "crashing and burning" could be highly unpleasant for the rest of us as well.

[Thanas]

Despite, you think the middle east is bad enough but apparently cosmicalstorm (who also is against refugees) wants to remove one of the big three, semi-stable countries, without thinking what that will do to the region and refugees.

[Broomstick]

If Saudi Arabia goes down in flames it not only destabilizes the region, it puts Mecca and Medina up for grabs, too - imagine all these factions battling for control of Mecca? Just one more log on the fire.

I'm not fond of absolute monarchies or theocratic states, but at least Saudi Arabia is stable at the moment, not engulfed in a brutal civil war. I may not like monarchies of that sort, but they certainly can work as a form of government and stability. They are not the worst of all possible situations.

[LaCroix]

Aaaand Turkey got stupid and downed a Russian fighter jet, according to news. Apparently, the plane was still in Syrian airspace at that time (disputed), because the wreckage (allegedly) landed on Syrian soil.

There should be more information, soon.

Still, a stupid dick move on Turkey's behalf.

[Purple]

Any word on the pilot?