The General Political Thread

[Duuring]

Yes I agree there would be no war if UK kept Syria as colony and treated people well.

That's some retarded logic right there and I'd like to be clear that I never meant or support this believe in any way. The answer to colonialism isn't more colonialism. Not to mention that Syria was never a colony of the UK, merely a mandate of the French for just under two decades. Why don't you read the wikipedia page on the country first, before you make such broad statements as 'it should never have had self-determination'?

But if there would be no Assad there would be some other dictator maybe even worse or do you propose it would somehow turn to a Scandinavian model of democracy state?  Or perhaps anarchy?

Or perhaps a slightly less dictator-ish country with respect to fair claims to political and human rights.

Of course he commited crimes almost every army in every war comits warcrimes, of there was serious civil war in UK,  UK goverment would commit them as well.

If human rights and international law are that meaningless according to you, then why do you care about the USA bombing Assad?


As I mentioned earlier, Assad is very likely to cut a deal with the Kurds. Protection in return for subordination and probably the return of some regions to direct government control. The SDF cannot hope to win a war against Assad, especially not with Turkey breathing down its neck. Dunno how the lefties will spin that shit, but my money is definitaly on it.

[junedragon]

Tu Quoque is not an argument.

[McPero]

Yes I agree there would be no war if UK kept Syria as colony and treated people well.

That's some retarded logic right there and I'd like to be clear that I never meant or support this believe in any way. The answer to colonialism isn't more colonialism. Not to mention that Syria was never a colony of the UK, merely a mandate of the French for just under two decades. Why don't you read the wikipedia page on the country first, before you make such broad statements as 'it should never have had self-determination'?

But if there would be no Assad there would be some other dictator maybe even worse or do you propose it would somehow turn to a Scandinavian model of democracy state?  Or perhaps anarchy?

Or perhaps a slightly less dictator-ish country with respect to fair claims to political and human rights.

Of course he commited crimes almost every army in every war comits warcrimes, of there was serious civil war in UK,  UK goverment would commit them as well.

If human rights and international law are that meaningless according to you, then why do you care about the USA bombing Assad?


As I mentioned earlier, Assad is very likely to cut a deal with the Kurds. Protection in return for subordination and probably the return of some regions to direct government control. The SDF cannot hope to win a war against Assad, especially not with Turkey breathing down its neck. Dunno how the lefties will spin that shit, but my money is definitaly on it.

Yeah I knew it was only mandate after WW1 for some reason thought it was British. Doesn't really matters. I know you weren't saying that. But keeping colonies after WW2 would be the best thing it could happen. Europe should keep colonies untill they would develop them to level of Europe, they would become educated and wouldn't have 10 kids and democracy might work after they would be released. Now you have these poor countries opened to neocolonialism which is far worse than colonialism would be.

Assad's regime is no different to half of middle east/africa it has just been exautrated by fake news to seem like it is almost like North Korea. Syria was a good country and most people were happy to live there. So you might have more democratic states in area we are talking about but few had such a good life standard.

Well because USA is supposed to be main defender of international law? Yet they execute unjustified airstrikes on state that is fighting against terrorism. Even if airstrikes are justified they achive nothing but more destruction and if you support such airstrikes you are a bad person not just immoral but stupid.

[McPero]

Tu Quoque is not an argument.

Yeah it is sad how they keep using it. It is a discussion about USA airstrikes and somehow they keep pointing finger to Assad 'he did this he does this' even though I said multiple times that he is bad. Idk why would you even want to have discussion about Assad being bad or good it is obvious he is not good. I am simply criticising USA support of rebels against his regime, their airstrikes that only managed to injure 3 civilians and that Assad has no motive for gas attack and that it was executed by rebels supported by USA. It is far more important to discuss USA's action than Assads since USA is far greater danger to world peace than any other state. It is crucial to keep awareness that USA is spreading lies and is leading agressive foreign policy which is not according to international law or rather USA controls international law to their benefit. This is dangerous since your country could easily be next I don't think you would be concered with your state military killing americal mercenaries when there are lies spead about your country.

[Duuring]

But keeping colonies after WW2 would be the best thing it could happen. Europe should keep colonies untill they would develop them to level of Europe, they would become educated and wouldn't have 10 kids and democracy might work after they would be released. Now you have these poor countries opened to neocolonialism which is far worse than colonialism would be.

Do you even realize you're citing the exact defence people had for colonialism for centuries? And your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, 'another few decades would surely have solved all its problems!'? No, it would not. That's like saying the best way to avoid all the nasty consequencies of having a war is having a little more war.

Assad's regime is no different to half of middle east/africa it has just been exautrated by fake news to seem like it is almost like North Korea. Syria was a good country and most people were happy to live there. So you might have more democratic states in area we are talking about but few had such a good life standard.

It's really not up to you (or any of us) to decide if Syrian people had a fair reason to protest and later resist the government. There have been the most horrible regimes in the world in which 'most people were happy to live'. Which, by the way, is kinda hard to measure in dictatorships as the people who aren't happy to live there usually get a visit by the police, dissappear, flee the country, get jailed or end up dead.

A Syrian refugee writes a column for a local newspaper in my city. During the last election, he wrote about how he found it so funny peopl were so secretive about who they voted for. He explained that in Syria, you showed everybody you voted for Assad's party, all but screaming from the rooftops how much you loved voting for the party and how Assad was such an awesome leader, just to make sure the police wouldn't come after them. People would leave the curtains open and draw a much bigger cross then necessary, just to make sure anyone who wished to check could see they were being good citizens.

[Edwin]

It's really not up to you (or any of us) to decide if Syrian people had a fair reason to protest and later resist the government. There have been the most horrible regimes in the world in which 'most people were happy to live'. Which, by the way, is kinda hard to measure in dictatorships as the people who aren't happy to live there usually get a visit by the police, dissappear, flee the country, get jailed or end up dead.

A Syrian refugee writes a column for a local newspaper in my city. During the last election, he wrote about how he found it so funny peopl were so secretive about who they voted for. He explained that in Syria, you showed everybody you voted for Assad's party, all but screaming from the rooftops how much you loved voting for the party and how Assad was such an awesome leader, just to make sure the police wouldn't come after them. People would leave the curtains open and draw a much bigger cross then necessary, just to make sure anyone who wished to check could see they were being good citizens.

"Freedom fighter" meme

[Furrnox]

This reminds me of the ending of "The Dictator" we're a democracy now btw..
Swaps to a scene with a tank next to the voting station.

[McPero]

But keeping colonies after WW2 would be the best thing it could happen. Europe should keep colonies untill they would develop them to level of Europe, they would become educated and wouldn't have 10 kids and democracy might work after they would be released. Now you have these poor countries opened to neocolonialism which is far worse than colonialism would be.

Do you even realize you're citing the exact defence people had for colonialism for centuries? And your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, 'another few decades would surely have solved all its problems!'? No, it would not. That's like saying the best way to avoid all the nasty consequencies of having a war is having a little more war.

Assad's regime is no different to half of middle east/africa it has just been exautrated by fake news to seem like it is almost like North Korea. Syria was a good country and most people were happy to live there. So you might have more democratic states in area we are talking about but few had such a good life standard.

It's really not up to you (or any of us) to decide if Syrian people had a fair reason to protest and later resist the government. There have been the most horrible regimes in the world in which 'most people were happy to live'. Which, by the way, is kinda hard to measure in dictatorships as the people who aren't happy to live there usually get a visit by the police, dissappear, flee the country, get jailed or end up dead.

A Syrian refugee writes a column for a local newspaper in my city. During the last election, he wrote about how he found it so funny peopl were so secretive about who they voted for. He explained that in Syria, you showed everybody you voted for Assad's party, all but screaming from the rooftops how much you loved voting for the party and how Assad was such an awesome leader, just to make sure the police wouldn't come after them. People would leave the curtains open and draw a much bigger cross then necessary, just to make sure anyone who wished to check could see they were being good citizens.

So you are claiming pre ww2 Europe is same as post ww2 Europe?  And that colonial lords were trying to develop their colonies? No they didn't so it would be possible for colonies to catch up to their overlord countries, since global community would have eyes on colonies that they are treated well and actually developing. And of course I am aware they were claiming they are civilising colonies but they weren't really, but they would be force to do so now.

They have right to protest against Assad no doubt but I am not sure what exactly is your point here?  I agree happiness is hard to measure but most of the people usually just want high life standard which you had in Syria as long as you pretended you support and love Assad most people don't really care about having freedom of political view especially in a country that has never experienced democracy.

[Duuring]

No they didn't so it would be possible for colonies to catch up to their overlord countries, since global community would have eyes on colonies that they are treated well and actually developing.

Jesus Christ. This is EXACTLY what the plan was for all ex-colonies: Receive self-determination, gain independence from the colonial overlord when 'ready' (which for some countries took even decades after WW2, while their independence movements usually existed long before that), and all under the watchful eye of the United Nations. But hey, it turns out that if you create a country from a weirdly drawn region you just used to get natural resources from for a century, without paying attention to its local factors like power structure, cultures, ethnic diversity, languages, all in the middle of a ideological cold world war, somehow, that tends to lead to friction. I wonder why.

You're suggesting the exact course of history as an alternative course. It's almost funny.

Not to mention that Syria never was a colony, so I actually don't know why you're even arguing this.

They have right to protest against Assad no doubt but I am not sure what exactly is your point here? .

My point is that they have the right to protest, amongst a whole set of other rights, and that no western apologist has or should have the right to argue they don't really deserve, want or need that right because that apologist isn't comfortable with that. Civilians are not to be harmed, let alone specifically targetted. Warcriminals deserve a fair trial and due punishment, not apologies or praise.

[McPero]

If his regime was so strong, why was he losing badly before the Russian’s intervened? And to say that the West’s meagre support for the rebel’s cause them to weaken the regime is very much wishful thinking.

If the USA had really wanted regime change, they would have changed the regime in mere days

So here is your meagre support for rebels and that this uprising is somehow natural rebellion caused by public unrest.

[Theodin]

Ah, TYT

[McPero]

No they didn't so it would be possible for colonies to catch up to their overlord countries, since global community would have eyes on colonies that they are treated well and actually developing.

Jesus Christ. This is EXACTLY what the plan was for all ex-colonies: Receive self-determination, gain independence from the colonial overlord when 'ready' (which for some countries took even decades after WW2, while their independence movements usually existed long before that), and all under the watchful eye of the United Nations. But hey, it turns out that if you create a country from a weirdly drawn region you just used to get natural resources from for a century, without paying attention to its local factors like power structure, cultures, ethnic diversity, languages, all in the middle of a ideological cold world war, somehow, that tends to lead to friction. I wonder why.

You're suggesting the exact course of history as an alternative course. It's almost funny.

Not to mention that Syria never was a colony, so I actually don't know why you're even arguing this.

They have right to protest against Assad no doubt but I am not sure what exactly is your point here? .

My point is that they have the right to protest, amongst a whole set of other rights, and that no western apologist has or should have the right to argue they don't really deserve, want or need that right because that apologist isn't comfortable with that. Civilians are not to be harmed, let alone specifically targetted. Warcriminals deserve a fair trial and due punishment, not apologies or praise.

Doesn't seems like you are reading what I am writing how is that exactly the same?  I said colonise should stay under colonial overlord countries untill equally developed. Is Afrika equally developed?  Was it when it was 'ready'  to be released? No it is still not. Seems like you only read the sentence you quoted because otherways what you wrote makes no sense. Read again. And Syria was mandate and before that it was Otoman province so not really western country, Turkey managed to westernize while Syria didn't so Syria should be kept as a colony by France.

Agreed.

[Duuring]

So when exactly stopped the anti-Assad protests (later, fighting) and did the American invasion start?

Doesn't seems like you are reading what I am writing how is that exactly the same?  I said colonise should stay under colonial overlord countries untill equally developed. Is Afrika equally developed?  Was it when it was 'ready'  to be released? No it is still not

See, the problem is that you, nor anyone besides people themselves, has right to determine this. Self-determination is not something you grant, it is something that is claimed.

[McPero]

So when exactly stopped the anti-Assad protests (later, fighting) and did the American invasion start?

Doesn't seems like you are reading what I am writing how is that exactly the same?  I said colonise should stay under colonial overlord countries untill equally developed. Is Afrika equally developed?  Was it when it was 'ready'  to be released? No it is still not

See, the problem is that you, nor anyone besides people themselves, has right to determine this. Self-determination is not something you grant, it is something that is claimed.

Well it is quite obvious protests were started by USA from the beginning.

Yes Africa really seems ready to be left alone for USA and China to abuse them some more.

[Duuring]

Well it is quite obvious protests were started by USA from the beginning.