Soxbadger

And you conveniently still havent addressed chemical weapons which have been banned since WWI. But I guess well just all stick our heads in the sand and pretend its not happening. Maybe if you read an article by a foreign guy youll understand why chemical weapons have no place in our society and why we have to make an example. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...-red-line-world

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:16 PM) You're right I keep hammering on it because as soon as the excitement of the missiles is off the front page the disasters we've unleashed get ignored. Libya, for example, the great triumph of this type of intervention, is a complete clusterf*** right now. The country is being torn apart, ruled by warlords, and arms from the Libyan army are going to supply an entire generation of wars and terrorist attacks throughout North Africa because they've gone completely out of control. There are civil wars brewing all over North Africa supplied by those weapons. The last time we did this, the air war killed a ton of people, not just the combatants but a lot of other people, and the result has been thousands of small massacres replacing the one big massacre we tried to avoid. And the consequences on the ground, the piles of dead bodies from the air campaign, are literally ignored because there's no one there to cover them. No because this is how freedom works. Its not a simple overnight process. The US didnt just wake up one day and was free, it had to fight for it. Many people died fighting the British. Many people died in the Civil War. Just like Syria until chemical weapons. But after WWI we as a society realized that chemical weapons need to be a real line in the sand. And if we go back on that, then what has any consequences anymore? So its not that I dont know about Libya. Its just simply if we want Africa to be truly free, they are going to have to figure it out themselves, and that likely means there are going to be body counts. Its unfortunate, but they need to find their own end. I just am unwilling to accept a world where chemical weapons are allowed to be used. We have plenty of other ways to kill each other.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 03:04 PM) However...this is exactly what you continually do with the consequences of bombing. Wave your hand and pretend they don't exist. No actually it isnt. In every single post I concede that there will be consequences to any type of military intervention. You just keep hammering on it, when every reasonable person already has accounted for this. Yet you dont ever seem to concede that inaction will lead to more deaths as well. Like I said, Id rather try than juts sit on the sidelines afraid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Your level is "collateral damage"? Yeah I want innocent people to die. /rolls eyes Unlike you Balta I accept that sometimes bad things happen as a consequence of trying to do something good. But just because a bad thing MAY happen, doesnt mean I let other bad things keep happening out of fear. You keep acting as if people arent dying right now, but they are. You cant just wave your hand and pretend that doesnt exist, so to turn a phrase. Your level is "just let them die, who cares about chemical warfare." Anyone can make a catchy insulting 1 sentence quip. Perhaps we should go beyond that and we can actually discuss why the use of chemical weapons is such a big deal.

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 4, 2013 -> 12:55 PM) it shows that McCain, like many, has already made up his mind. Exactly. And Duke the people of Syria (at least Id like to think) are no different than us. They want the same things as us. I dont really believe in religion or any of that, but once in a while it does contain a few really important messages. And the one of the oldest is that others suffering is our suffering, and that we should never forget that at one point we have all suffered and because we have suffered, we should try and prevent others from the same type of suffering. And maybe there are people there who want to kill me for stupid reasons. That doesnt mean I sink to their level, it means I try and lift them to mine.

It does have offline franchise and it is glorious.

Lupe is alright. I like some of his stuff, I just think Kendrick is bringing a sound that is really going to resonate. Ive been wearing the s*** out of Yeezus lately. At North Coast basically every DJ was mixing in beats from Blood on the Trees. Also saw Nas, Wu Tang and Mac Miller. Next up Kid Cudi.

If I had to buy a program, Id buy Northwestern. Being in the west its going to have legitimate chances to play in the Big10 championship. Theres no reason that it cant be a Stanford type destination for players.

Northwestern is so close, they are a team that is really going to benefit from being in the West. And Im going to benefit because im going to see Wisconsin at Evanston every other year.

Id seriously consider making him an unprecedented offer and say it will be like Barry Alvarez, he can coach NU until he wants to retire and then he can do whatever he wants. He seems like the type of guy that would go for that. In other news, Im really excited for Melvin Gordon. Maybe the best pure running back Ive seen at Wisconsin since Ive been following them. And I think Im going to love the Andersen hire, but I never liked Bielema.

Zoom do you think they can lock up fitzgerald forever?

I know this is completely random, but what else can Obama do? Everyone wants to pass the buck, no one wants to make the hard decisions. He knows that if he goes into Syria without congressional support and it goes sideways, thats his legacy.I People can call me ignorant, optimistic, whatever. Ive been here for 10 years, and Ill just say, I dont think I have all the answers, but Im always willing to have a discussion about why something should be the answer. And as long as we as people can keep doing that, I think that history will judge us kindly. But thats going to take every one of us dropping something at the door, and moving towards consensus. We are all to similar to let our petty differences get in the way. I just have to believe that if people are given freedom, if people are given the opportunity to learn and think for themselves, they will ultimately choose good. So to wrap it up, no matter what someone may say, insult me, think of me, Id like to hope that if we actually met, theyd realize that there is a lot of thought that goes behind what I say, and maybe im idealistic, but I feel like the problem is at some point we stopped dreaming. Ha irony with MLKs speech but, I still believe there is freer, I still believe there is better, and I just hope that my life, which in terms of existence is nothing more than the smallest pebble on the largest beach, results in more good than bad. And like I said thats tangential, but that really is my philosophy. And while many times Ill say the US cant intervene, there are sometimes (chemical weapons), where we have to stand against it. Even if the rest of the world says no. Sometimes you have to jump off the bridge, because I hope that if one day our backs were against the wall, that someone else would lend me a hand.

lol On a TD run by James White an official fell running backwards right where it looked like he may have stepped out of bounds and they had to replay it like 10 times in slow motion. Even the announcers were laughing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Like the consequences suffered by the only country ever to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population? Anyway, aside from that, coming up with consequences is a big part of the problem here. We drew this red line and we did so with very little ability to back it up if anyone crossed it. There's no way to fight this war from the air right now because it literally is house to house, there's no simple way to target these weapons without dispersing them, the command and control systems in the country are a mess anyway because it's a civil war. It's darn near impossible to seriously degrade their capacity with a limited number of strikes, but why would they stop using them if the response is only a limited and controversial set of airstrikes? Well then I guess we just let them die and send some money and condolence cards. Sorry, not our problem, but here is a bread basket.

There is a certain irony that people dont want to intervene because its "not our problem". Well isnt that creating an inherent difference between us and them? If it happened in Ohio is it our problem? Chicago? Your backyard? People are people, I dont want my govt using chemical weapons on me, I dont want it to ever by "my problem" as some of you would so eloquently state. But its "our" problem, because we are all humans, and fortunately or unfortunately, we all hold each others fates in our own hands.

Well Iraq is complicated because I was against attacking over WMD, but they then changed it to humanitarian so whatever. Anyways, civil wars are going to happen, the price of freedom is blood is going to happen. But you have to set some sort of tangible consequence for chemical strikes. Otherwise why not keep using chemical weapons? (edit) I presume you agree that if a country nuked a civilian population there should be some consequence?

If a war has escalated to where both sides are willing to use chemical weapons, you pretty much have to commit occupying forces. Otherwise people are going to start building biological and chemical weapons again and that poses to great of a risk to all society. You really have to respond disproportionately if it appears its going to continue to happen. Lets call a spade a spade, its not like I was saying much when 100k were killed in a regular civil war. But chemical weapons has to be a line in the sand...

If both sides did it, then it would seem intervention is even more important to stop BOTH sides from using chemical weapons. And all I will say about this whole "Americans over others" is that not everyone was lucky enough to be born in the greatest country that may have ever existed, but that doesnt mean I condemn them to death because of mere chance. No, that is not what America to me is about. So maybe there is no good answer, maybe intervention would cause more deaths, more misery, more of all the bad. But if its just about money, resources, then you have to help. Because a stack of money isnt worth the paper its printed on if it meant that other people had to suffer. If the United States is going to be destroyed economically, if it all falls apart, Id rather that we went down trying, instead of hording our money in a corner and hoping that the worlds problems never become our problems. You have to believe that if you try and do good things, that if you help other people, that things will change, that people will appreciate it. Because if you dont believe that, then what is all this worth. You might as well just be a monster. No other country has ever been faced with such burden or responsibility, we dont have to accept it, I just choose to.

All of these studies are opinion. Ive already answered the question, its not really that difficult. Most people who understand history and politics agree "not all cases are the same". Thus arguing about "limited success" of intervention on other cases is meaningless, the same as arguing that intervention will prolong or shorten a war. Its meaningless, its why I left political science, because you can write a paper arguing that the US declaring war on Germany resulted in more deaths of Jews. Its supported by fact, there is direct historical evidence. And then some parrot on a website can start quoting my "study" as if it means something. It doesnt, its just a stupid opinion, like we all have. Just because you read a bunch of books and write a lot of words doesnt mean you understand, it doesnt make you some sort of honest person. People do research and write papers on things they care about. I did a lot of research and writing on Nazi propaganda. Do you think any of my research ever came to a different conclusion than what I started with? No, because when its political science you can spin anything you want. Lets use Syria. Example A No one intervenes and the war goes on for 10 years. I can argue if only we intervened it would have been shorter, write a monday morning qb article about all the bad things that happened, and then its self serving. Example B No one intervenes and war goes 1 more day. I can still argue that if we had intervened early thousands of lives could have been saved. Example C Intervention war goes on 10 years. Once again can argue but for intervention war would have gone 20 years. Example D Intervention war ends tomorrow. Look intervention worked. In every plausible scenario I can argue my position. This isnt a science experiment where I can remove variables and actually come to an answer. This is opinion. So if in YOUR opinion you think that humanitarian aid is good enough if a govt is using chemical weapons, then you are entitled to that. But in MY opinion if it can be proven that a govt is using chemical weapons against its people, you need to do more to immediately stop it. I just dont pretend that I have a crystal ball.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) So why do you trust war when it also did nothing to help the Jews? I dont trust anything but myself. Im not advocating for intervention in Syria, Im arguing against the idea that you shouldn't intervene because people may die due to intervention. Its just historically absurd.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 05:00 PM) Why is it ok for Assad and the rebels to blow each other and lots of civilians up with conventional weapons but not chemical weapons. The only available information I've seen, which you dismiss out of hand, is that there is greater risk to civilian life by intervening. 1) Because the price of freedom is blood. We have all had to pay it. Its just historical fact. In a perfect world people would allow peaceful change, but that wont ever happen. 2) The information you presented is terrible and I believe I proved why. You have yet to show me how that article can come to that conclusion beyond mere speculation. There is literally no way you can compare the same conflict and say "In X scenario there was no intervention in Y scenario there was intervention". If you could, then maybe the information would be worth while. But otherwise its merely an opinion piece, which is fun, but not something I need to consider cannon.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:56 PM) But there is one thing you can say definitively. Spending money on humanitarian aid in these cases absolutely works to save lives. It's the only thing that actually works. Really? Might want to check into the International Red Cross and World War II. They did a bang up job of helping all those Jews. T http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...t/redcross.html The ICRC maintained that there was no inequality of treatment of Jewish prisoners, Yeah, Im really going to trust them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) To play your game, if the Jews also had an army and were regularly massacring German civilians, would you support their elimination as well? Are the Jews using chemical weapons? Because if both sides are using chemical weapons you need to stop them both. Chemical weapons really just are not okay since WWI. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) But it ought to tell you one thing..."humanitarian intervention" is absolutely not guaranteed to reduce casualties and to say otherwise is to ignore evidence. It could in some circumstances do so...but that means you need to absolutely sit down and detail the circumstances. No one is saying that it guarantees less casualties. Im pretty sure Ive consistently said "There is no way to predict the outcome", but that doesnt mean Ill sit on my hands while people are being murdered. You take risks in life, you make decisions based on the facts available. Sometimes they work, sometimes they dont.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) You can conduct the same conflict with two different reactions to really see what the difference would have been. This is 100% true. Anything else is merely speculation. Hell I can write an article (supported by fact) that but for the allies involvement in World War II, maybe less Jews die. It wasnt until 1941-2 that Germany did the "final solution". So maybe if Germany wins the war, they only enslave the Jews. So basically you can argue ally intervention in world war ii killed more jews than if they sat out. As historically Hitler said that he was killing the Jews for starting another World War (December 12, 1941) which was 5 days after Pearl Harbor. So if the US had not declared war on Germany, maybe he never orders the final solution. What terrible logic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 29, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) How is Syria comparable at all to targeted genocide and open warfare between multiple nation-states like WWII? The comparison just doesn't hold up here. And, if you'll note, the Allies didn't really do s*** to stop the genocide even when they were bombing within a mile or two of known concentration camps. They could have very easily bombed the railroad tracks, but they didn't. They didn't intervene to help civilians or to stop the genocide. The Allies' conduct in that regard is actually pretty appalling. It's certainly not a good example of humanitarian intervention. Exactly, this is why I wont let this happen on my watch. Because to many people like you just raise their hands to the sky and say "There is nothing I can do" No there is something you can do, when you see evil, when you see tyranny, you stop it. Sometimes bad things happen because of that, but you dont just let the even worse things continue because youre afraid something bad may one day happen. Now that is not to say the US should absolutely intervene in Syria. But if its shown that the govt is targeting and killing civilians with chemical weapons, Im not sure how much worse our bombing can make it, because chemical weapons on civilians is pretty outrageous.