Gas Attack In Syria..genocide

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

 

The trouble with the whole argument is that it is rendered void by the simple and undeniable fact that if one purports to be a superpower that looks after it's interests one cannot have an non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

Otherwise some proxy of some other budding power will test you and force your hand.

 

 

I presume you refer to the argument of non-interventionism and not my own statement.

 

I'd say that you don't need to be a super power to not really be able to follow the hard line non-interventionist ideology. It's just that historically when the world has lived under the dominance of a single superpower it's only the willingness of that power to put her foot down (rightly or wrongly, I'm not making judgement) that stops the rest of the major and minor powers from duking it out for regional and global dominance. Which was your point.

 

The only powers that can be non interventionist completely are those that are little to not at all influence by global events. Which is very f***ing few these days.

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

Yeah, exactly.

 

I meant the whole charade of "America First" vs "Bombing for the sake of the children".

 

It may just be possible that the messes in the ME are a sort of collective Suez for the US in terms of a tipping point of primacy.

 

How many small scale and proxy wars can a nation fight?

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Yeah, exactly.

 

I meant the whole charade of "America First" vs "Bombing for the sake of the children".

 

It may just be possible that the messes in the ME are a sort of collective Suez for the US in terms of a tipping point of primacy.

 

How many small scale and proxy wars can a nation fight?

 

With about 20 fixed wing aircraft carriers, I'd say about 10-15 at a time! LOL

[Malt 379]

 

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

I meant the whole charade of "America First" vs "Bombing for the sake of the children".

 

It may just be possible that the messes in the ME are a sort of collective Suez for the US in terms of a tipping point of primacy.

 

How many small scale and proxy wars can a nation fight?

With about 20 fixed wing aircraft carriers, I'd say about 10-15 at a time! LOL

That's on top of the ones they could cover with air power within reach of any of their permanent overseas bases.. They have one or two of those dotted about here and there..

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

I meant the whole charade of "America First" vs "Bombing for the sake of the children".

 

It may just be possible that the messes in the ME are a sort of collective Suez for the US in terms of a tipping point of primacy.

 

How many small scale and proxy wars can a nation fight?

 

With about 20 fixed wing aircraft carriers, I'd say about 10-15 at a time! LOL

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

I meant the whole charade of "America First" vs "Bombing for the sake of the children".

 

It may just be possible that the messes in the ME are a sort of collective Suez for the US in terms of a tipping point of primacy.

 

How many small scale and proxy wars can a nation fight?

With about 20 fixed wing aircraft carriers, I'd say about 10-15 at a time! LOL

That's on top of the ones they could cover with air power within reach of any of their permanent overseas bases.. They have one or two of those dotted about here and there..

 

 

So let's assume you were Russia or China, at what capacity would you want the US war machine running it at when you play your hand?

 

It gets to the point where if your conventional and proxy forces are all fully tied up, going nuclear is your only remaining option and MAD still applies.

 

A sort of death by a thousand self inflicted cuts.

[Malt 379]

They always got plenty in reserve plus a huge capacity to make more.. and then there are allies to take into account..

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

True but less and less so.

 

We didn't join in with the mooted bombing of Syria in 2013, for example, and that seemed to kill it for the Americans too.

 

I am contrasting that with the situation in 2003 when Blair more or less sold us all out in his commitment to basically whatever the neocons wanted to do.

 

I give that as an example of what I am saying is a downward trend in their international influence rather trying to say that America has been neutered or anything like that.

 

As per the Suez example, basically, when the US told Britain and France to stop buggering about the nature of the relationship changed forever and progressively from that point.

 

I am worried by this all as I would rather have America, with it's faults but also it's freedoms, than Russia breathing down our collective necks.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

 

So let's assume you were Russia or China, at what capacity would you want the US war machine running it at when you play your hand?

 

It gets to the point where if your conventional and proxy forces are all fully tied up, going nuclear is your only remaining option and MAD still applies.

 

A sort of death by a thousand self inflicted cuts.

 

 

My comment wasn't serious, more just a joke about the enormous scale and capability of the US military. I absolutely do not believe we are getting close to a serious US-Russo conflict. Besides, in the event of such a world war, proxy wars would be just given up on unless critical to the greater strategic picture. The last thing I'd want is a battle hardened enemy. Depleted yes but these little interventions aren't doing that.

 

And I don't see recent events as a Suez 2.0 with the US in the UKs seat. I see it as the total opposite, the US reinstating it's commitment to Pax- Americana.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Born Hunter

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

 

 

So let's assume you were Russia or China, at what capacity would you want the US war machine running it at when you play your hand?

 

It gets to the point where if your conventional and proxy forces are all fully tied up, going nuclear is your only remaining option and MAD still applies.

 

A sort of death by a thousand self inflicted cuts.

 

 

My comment wasn't serious, more just a joke about the enormous scale and capability of the US military. I absolutely do not believe we are getting close to a serious US-Russo conflict. Besides, in the event of such a world war, proxy wars would be just given up on unless critical to the greater strategic picture. The last thing I'd want is a battle hardened enemy. Depleted yes but these little interventions aren't doing that.

 

And I don't see recent events as a Suez 2.0 with the US in the UKs seat. I see it as the total opposite, the US reinstating it's commitment to Pax- Americana.

 

I take your point but I think we are closer than we've been in a long time.

 

The threat of terrorism, as serious as it is, pales into insignificance compared to the sort of threat of nuclear holocaust our parent's generation lived with.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

 

I take your point but I think we are closer than we've been in a long time.

 

The threat of terrorism, as serious as it is, pales into insignificance compared to the sort of threat of nuclear holocaust our parent's generation lived with.

 

 

Fair enough, we all have our different outlooks. I agree with you about terrorism. Objectively the effects from Islamic terrorism are nothing too serious when put in perspective. There's more to that story though and imo it feels so affective because of the principle of it, it just naturally outrages us more than an equivalent death toll from any other cause and we're so focused on it as a society for that reason. Rightly or wrongly.

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

 

 

I take your point but I think we are closer than we've been in a long time.

 

The threat of terrorism, as serious as it is, pales into insignificance compared to the sort of threat of nuclear holocaust our parent's generation lived with.

 

 

Fair enough, we all have our different outlooks. I agree with you about terrorism. Objectively the effects from Islamic terrorism are nothing too serious when put in perspective. There's more to that story though and imo it feels so affective because of the principle of it, it just naturally outrages us more than an equivalent death toll from any other cause and we're so focused on it as a society for that reason. Rightly or wrongly.

 

Rightly in my view, it's murder on the streets nothing more.

 

The other view, that terrorists are freedom fighters, is not a view I subscribe to.

 

To mention the elephant in the room, some of what is notionally "anti-terrorism" or "anti-Islam" is simply the underlying aversion to "pakis and nig-nog" as someone put it dressed up as pseudo-concern for their fellow man.

 

This tends to particularly be the case in the example of alt-right types on the internet.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

 

Rightly in my view, it's murder on the streets nothing more.

 

The other view, that terrorists are freedom fighters, is not a view I subscribe to.

 

To mention the elephant in the room, some of what is notionally "anti-terrorism" or "anti-Islam" is simply the underlying aversion to "pakis and nig-nog" as someone put it dressed up as pseudo-concern for their fellow man.

 

This tends to particularly be the case in the example of alt-right types on the internet.

 

 

But that's the thing, it's seen as worse than murder on the streets, far worse. When we read about some poor f****r getting beat to death by a mugger we sigh and then forget about it. When we read about someone getting done in by an Islamic extremist it's international news and we all get absolutely f***ing venomous with outrage. The death toll is the same but the principle of it provokes a far stronger emotion in us. I agree it's right but like I said, objectively in terms of actual death toll imo terrorism isn't that high.

 

Myself, I don't think the alt-right necessarily try to disguise their ethnic nationalism under the counter terror banner, at least not the ones I've seen. They simply use these terrorist acts to further their political ideology. Fair play imo but not an ideology I really agree with.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Born Hunter

[DogMan85 722]

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer, unless he or she is a serial killer. This definitely provokes a comparable outcry from the public.

Edited April 12, 2017 by DogMan85

[The Lord Flashheart 73]

 

 

 

Rightly in my view, it's murder on the streets nothing more.

 

The other view, that terrorists are freedom fighters, is not a view I subscribe to.

 

To mention the elephant in the room, some of what is notionally "anti-terrorism" or "anti-Islam" is simply the underlying aversion to "pakis and nig-nog" as someone put it dressed up as pseudo-concern for their fellow man.

 

This tends to particularly be the case in the example of alt-right types on the internet.

 

 

But that's the thing, it's seen as worse than murder on the streets, far worse. When we read about some poor f****r getting beat to death by a mugger we sigh and then forget about it. When we read about someone getting done in by an Islamic extremist it's international news and we all get absolutely f***ing venomous with outrage. The death toll is the same but the principle of it provokes a far stronger emotion in us. I agree it's right but like I said, objectively in terms of actual death toll imo terrorism isn't that high.

 

Myself, I don't think the alt-right necessarily try to disguise their ethnic nationalism under the counter terror banner, at least not the ones I've seen. They simply use these terrorist acts to further their political ideology. Fair play imo but not an ideology I really agree with.

 

 

I don't know that they have enough else for it qualify as a political ideology, would be my response; look at the irrelevance of the EDL for example.

 

At the end of the day the biggest issue I have with that type is that they don't realise that they are the ideological and cultural homologues of the people they profess to oppose whilst at the same time opposing them for their stated lack of interest in rubbing along with other people.

 

It is also a slightly dirty game when they must realise in their hearts that they are not fighting a religion per se but in fact a religious nationalism which is functionally indistinguishable from the ethnic nationalism they themselves espouse.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Let's be honest, a terrorist attack usually has more casualties than a rogue murderer unless he's a serial killer which provokes a comparable outcry form the public.

 

Yeah but I'm not comparing individual cases, I'm comparing the effects of different threats to society. In terms of total death toll, terrorism is quite low, historically and compared to other stuff, like death in police custody, violent crime etc. Yes, 9/11, 7/7 etc are horrific single acts, far outweighing individual acts of more regular violent crime or whatever but viewed more generally the view is different.

 

And even when we do compare the effects of single acts that result in equal death toll, we react far more greatly to terrorism than more regular crimes.

 

Look, I was just agreeing with Flashy, that there are greater threats to society out there than terrorism and yet that is at the forefront of everyone's minds. I'm not saying it's wrong, lol.