StrangeSox

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 07:46 PM) Yeah, there is no way one could possibly miss that, we get your point. Move forward. Sure, as soon as a bunch of soxtalk posters stop posting explicitly racist things and have several others rushing to defend explicit racism, we can drop this subject.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 07:30 PM) Yeah I don't really value them at all. I guess biologically they are human beings but they aren't really people they way we think of people here in the civilized world. That's because you're a disgusting racist and a bigot.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 06:13 PM) No, they're not. But life on earth isn't fair. And making the choice to stay out of it doesn't mean we don't value them, as much as you might want to chastise all of us about it. Again, the discussion with Alpha wasn't about whether the US should intervene or not. If you'll notice, neither Balta nor I are supportive of military intervention in this thread. It was about his literal statement that he thinks the life of a Syrian is less valuable than the life of an American, and that people should intervene in humanitarian crises based on religion and skin color. Did Balta or I say NSS was racist for being against intervention? Or duke? Or ourselves? No, it was only the guy who came in and said he values human lives differently based on nationality, skin color and religion. There's nothing ironic about insulting racists and bigots. I don't think you're a racist or bigot, but Alpha pretty explicitly came out as one in this thread. I do think your reasoning in the above post was pretty s***ty, though.

The problem with that s***ty reasoning is that the overwhelming majority of Syrian people (or any other group of people caught in the middle of a violent struggle) are not "lunatics" who we should be happy are eliminated from the gene pool. edit: That discussion wasn't about whether or not the US should intervene. It started with me saying that the lives of Syrians are no less valuable than the lives of Americans. Alpha then made the argument that, yes, they are because they're not Americans, and if someone is going to help them, it should be people who look like them and are the same religion. That's bigoted and ignorant in its own right, assuming Americans are a monolith of white christians and Syrians are a monolith of brown muslims.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) WHERE DID HE SAY THEY WERE LESS VALUABLE?!!!!! Because he doesn't want Americans to put themselves in yet another costly war? Seriously? Go back to where this conversation started. Read alpha's words. They're very explicit. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) They are worth less to me because they are not me, my family, my friends, my tribe (country). That whole area over there is messed up. There will need to be a lot more deaths before anything is even near being normal. Let them kill themselves and stay out of it. I just don't care enough to want to do anything. Somebody else can do it. Somebody closer. Somebody with the same religion or skin tone or ideals. Just not us. He doesn't value their lives as highly as a random American life and thinks it's a brown-muslim-people's problem to deal with because Syrians are a bunch of brown muslims. You inexplicably don't find this racist.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) Jesus. Look at what he said: How is what I said different? First sentence - they're not my friend, family or countrymen, so they're not as important to me. Is that really wrong? Seriously? What am I missing there? It's wrong to think complete strangers an entire world away are not as important as those you see on a daily basis? You're already trying to pull the same crappy rhetorical shift that alpha did. My first response was that obviously you value friends and family above some random strangers, but you both keep trying to circle back around to that and ignoring the next part. Yes, it is wrong to view one human as inherently more valuable than another simply based on their nationality. He said it right in that post. Being humans, we have plenty in common with Syrians and there lives are no less valuable than yours or mine. Alpha wasn't making a libertarian isolationist argument. He went straight to nationalist, racism, and religious bigotry. Which, in another way, highlights his ignorance and bigotry. He might want to look at Syrian demographics some time. There are plenty of non-brown and non-muslim people there. There's also plenty of non-brown and non-muslim people in America! But his instinct is to assume "Americans=white christians" and "Syrians=brown muslims." Does it make you and Alpha feel good to say and defend racist and bigoted things? I seriously can't understand why you have to defend alpha's racist remarks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) Let me put it this way. I think that intervening in Syria sounds moronic. I can't think of a single way in which it will work out positively until we're prepared to put an occupying force in there. And I would never in 4.56 billion years have thought to cite differences in "skin tone" as a reason why. It never would have crossed my mind. Not in any way, shape, or form. Remember when the only reason Alpha could think that a bunch of Central and South American countries would join together in issuing a statement critical of the US stopping the Bolivian president's plane to search for Edward Snowden was because they had the same skin color? Good times.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:51 PM) SS went after him for more than just skin color, which is why I responded the way I did. Yes, I got after him for viewing one human as less valuable than another simply based on their nationality. It's a disgusting attitude. Yes, I got after him for viewing one human as less valuable than another because of their religion. It's also a disgusting attitude. You still felt the need to spring to his defense, make up a bunch of dumb strawmen and then conveniently ignore the incredibly racist s*** he said. Yes, I do believe that Alpha is racist. This is just the latest blatant example of his racism. That you still don't think somebody who said what he just said is racist is pretty sad.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) If I don't watch the second one, WTF? What's the story on this guy? Why the hell would he defect there and is he being treated well?? Is he crazy? He defected in the 60's. He had a really s***ty life prior to joining the military and being stationed on the DMZ. He was a loner in the Army and a mixed up kid. Yes, he's treated well there. He's a quasi-celebrity along with a handful of other American defectors from way back in the 50's and 60's.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) It's impressive how you could write all of this and completely ignore the fact that we jumped on him for justifying staying out because of the color of people's skin. Both SS and I seem to have little interest in joining this conflict, seemingly in agreement with you, but both of us were disgusted by the person who justified staying out by noting the differences in skin color. Apparently you couldn't defend that either so you didn't pay any attention to it. Because yeah, it was that disgusting. No, instead he had to throw up a bunch of dumb strawmen and pretend Alpha said completely different things. Pretty sad that jenks felt the need to rush to the defense of someone who clearly and openly stated that he values one human's life less than another's because of where they live, what their skin color is and what religion they follow.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) OMG! Someone prefers their country over another. The horror! It's pretty s***ty to literally value one human's life as less than another simply because of their nationality. That is what Alpha Dog said, not that he prefers the United States of America over Syria. It's pretty s***ty to literally value one human's life as less than another because of their skin tone or religion, as Alpha said. That is not the same as not being in favor of global intervention. Jesus christ your defense of open, explicit racism and bigotry is so disgusting all the time.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 12:50 PM) Not everyone in this world is worth the same to me, or to most sane people. If it was between saving your mom or some random stranger, would you just coin flip it? Well I don't know why I would ever have responded to such a simple question like that by accusing you of racism... Oh, right, it wasn't about "my mom or random stranger," it was about you explicitly not caring about another human being because they're from a different country, a different ethnicity and a different religion. This wasn't some hypothetical Sophie's choice. I even said valuing your friends and family more is completely normal and expected. You added the rest of your incredibly racist view of the world, that other human beings are worth less as human beings because of skin tone, religion and geographical location, all on your own.

Good job 'trolling' us with disgusting racism and terrible, dehumanizing views of humanity I guess?

Anyway, leaving that disgusting bit of racism aside, Kerry's speech a short while ago was pretty forceful. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/0...ech-about-syria

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 12:37 PM) I would much rather have either than Fitzgerald this year. I wonder how many people have bookmarked this post?

Valuing your friends and family more is one thing, obviously, but then you go on to add nationalism, racism and religious bigotry to your list of reasons why they are worth less as human beings to you.

BTW, ss2k5, where are you seeing that Rwanda was excluded from that first study? I've looked (which is how I've come across these other articles) but I can't seem to find it.

How Much Does History Help Us Predict the Success of a Syrian Intervention?

More Political Scientists on Intervention

And some more, When Do Interventions Work? There's a whole bunch of links in the original if you want to dig into a bunch of examination of past conflicts and interventions.

Another study posted on the Monkey Cage Do Military Interventions Hasten the End of Civil Wars?

This is from the abstract, this is why trying to bring up a bunch of situations that aren't intrastate armed conflicts and saying "why didn't they consider these?!?!" is silly and irrelevant, especially given that we're talking about an intrastate armed conflict in Syria.

I found a non-paywall version of the study here: http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_ml...9/p416529-1.php edit: this appears to be a previous version presented at a conference, not the final, paywalled study. It focused more on the response of insurgent forces to interventions pro, neutral and con.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) But that's the problem, he COULD, at any moment, and then this entire situation gets ignored as an outlier. The US COULD, at any moment, destroy its own population using chemical, biological, conventional and nuclear weapons. The rebels COULD, and some have expressed interest in, committing genocide against the ethnic group that Assad is from once they have won. Absolutely! And, in Syria, I'm not seeing any clear reason to support one side of the other in the first place, let alone to start bombing Syria in order to save it. I've yet to see a strong argument that makes a case for what should be done, how it will be done and what the expected results will be.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 30, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) Nice move of the goalposts. What goal posts are moving? That doesn't even make sense here.