Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

[GabonX]

Hizballah has begun depleting line of rockets and fighting units it has facing Israel from the Litani River of South Lebanon and moving them to the Syrian front line at Homs to strengthen Assad’s forces, debkafile's military sources reveal. Hizballah’s forward line against Israel is still in place among the southernmost Shiite villages, but a part of their artillery back-up is gone and, for the first time, Hizballah’s ground-to-ground rockets are moving in an eastward direction into Syria. This is a striking reversal of the usual direction taken by Hizballah hardware which, for years, headed from east to west to reach Lebanon from Iran and Syria.
This step attests to the scope, fury and determination of the Syrian army’s current land and air offensive against the rebels.
It also means that Hizballah has no fear of Israeli retaliation for the infiltration of an Iranian stealth drone from Lebanon into its air space on Saturday, Oct. 6 - even after HIzballah leader Hassan Nasrallah promised more unmanned interlopers would intrude on Israel’s skies.
Tuesday, Oct. 16, America’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice told a Security Council meeting on the Middle East that Nasrallah’s fighters were now part of “Assad’s killing machine.” Hizballah’s leaders, she said, continue to plot with Iran new measures “for propping up a murderous and desperate dictator.”

The Assad regime has found succor in another, more powerful quarter: Moscow has announced the deployment starting Wednesday, Oct. 17, of advanced S-400 interceptor missile batteries in Russia's southern military region opposite Turkey.
Russian military spokesman Col. Igor Gorbul described those missiles as “targeting Turkey” against its involvement in NATO’s missile shield program. He emphasized that the S-400s are capable of destroying all types of airplanes, as well as ultra-stratospheric and ballistic missiles.

debkafile's military sources say that, beside the issue of the NATO missile defense system to which Russia is firmly opposed, Moscow is relaying a double warning to Ankara on two additional scores:

One, that any more interceptions of Syria-bound aircraft coming from Russia after the incident of Oct. 10 would bring forth a Russian military response; and two, that Moscow will not tolerate aerial intrusion in the Syrian conflict by Turkey or any other NATO member. This warning was directed specifically against the imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria which Turkey is in the process of enforcing.
Col. Gorbul said the Russian army would finish relocating the S-400 interceptors in their new positions by the end of the year.
http://debka.com/article/22446/Russian- ... into-Syria

[BigBallinStalin]

US has 150 "advisers" in Jordan who are "planning" on "securing" Syria's Weapons of Mass Destruction!!! when if the Syrian Strongman falls. They're also there to help their Jordanian counterparts in managing the refugees. (While providing them weapons and training to those who are willing to fight? It's a great cover for such active measures).
[link see roughly three paragraphs down]

Hey, no worries, we might find out in 30 years! Maybe we'll accidently created another Bin Laden 2.0! Then we could have a terrorist attack which would justify more spending on the military! Yay for jobs jobs jobs and votes votes votes!

(just joking on that last part. It's unintentional to such a degree, but the institution is definitely self-rewarding in that sense for politicians, so why take huge measures to curb US interventionism?)

[BigBallinStalin]

If you (general you) were smacked in the face by some unseen force every time you said, "US intervention is necessary and awesome and we should invade country X," then you would be less likely to say it.

The politicians and planners in favor of US intervention lack that incentive to curb their imaginations on designing a better world. There is no constant slaps to the face--in other words, the costs of their decisions are not internalized. It doesn't matter if they ruin countries and bomb people because it can actually look good in the polls, or sometimes public opinion doesn't even matter because the general public doesn't feel the bombs and loss of friends and family.

/musing.

[GabonX]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

[saxitoxin]

The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

Smuggling arms to one side in a military conflict is the exact opposite of isolation. The U.S. chose, of its own will, to enter WWI at the point it started running guns to the British despite facing no threat or attack from Germany, Austria or the Caliphate. Isolation/Neutrality would have kept the U.S. out of WWI.

The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 feet of murky, turbulent water.

Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans, and helped push the United States into World War I. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions that Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time.

The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the ship sailed, indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.

Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck.

"The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid," says Bemis. "She was a legitimate target for the German submarine."

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

[GabonX]

The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

Smuggling arms to one side in a military conflict is the exact opposite of isolation. The U.S. chose, of its own will, to enter WWI at the point it started running guns to the British. Isolation/Neutrality would have kept the U.S. out of WWI.

The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 feet of murky, turbulent water.

Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans, and helped push the United States into World War I. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions that Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time.

The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the ship sailed, indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.

Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck.

"The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid," says Bemis. "She was a legitimate target for the German submarine."

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

That's actually pretty interesting but that example doesn't change the point, that is to say with modern technology isolationism is no longer feasible. The word is too small for the US to have hoped that it's financial capital be isolated from even a C rate group of mountain cave dwellers on the other side of the world. Take the US perspective out of the equation, and we can find examples for (almost?) any nation.

[nietzsche]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

[saxitoxin]

The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

Smuggling arms to one side in a military conflict is the exact opposite of isolation. The U.S. chose, of its own will, to enter WWI at the point it started running guns to the British. Isolation/Neutrality would have kept the U.S. out of WWI.

The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 feet of murky, turbulent water.

Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans, and helped push the United States into World War I. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions that Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time.

The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the ship sailed, indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.

Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck.

"The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid," says Bemis. "She was a legitimate target for the German submarine."

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

That's actually pretty interesting but that example doesn't change the point, that is to say with modern technology isolationism is no longer feasible. The word is too small for the US to have hoped that it's financial capital be isolated from even a C rate group of mountain cave dwellers on the other side of the world. Take the US perspective out of the equation, and we can find examples for (almost?) any nation.

Oh, okay then! Bombs away!

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

You can make the same argument for intervention. 'Gee, if we got involved in the Chinese war against India, then there would have been less casualties." Or you can ramp up the benefits: "The Chinese would've been subdued, and they wouldn't mess with us."

How about this one? "Gee, if the US invaded China after invading Japan, then the US could've wiped out the Communist Chinese, the Nationalist Party would be restored to power, and there would have been peace and democracy in a peaceful, freedom-loving China."


See? It's easy.

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

[BigBallinStalin]

The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

Smuggling arms to one side in a military conflict is the exact opposite of isolation. The U.S. chose, of its own will, to enter WWI at the point it started running guns to the British. Isolation/Neutrality would have kept the U.S. out of WWI.

The nearly century-old debate about whether the passenger liner Lusitania was transporting British war munitions when torpedoed by a German U-boat is over. Physical evidence of just such a cargo has been recovered from the wreck, which rests 12 miles off the Irish coast in 300 feet of murky, turbulent water.

Lusitania was sunk off County Cork on May 7, 1915. The attack killed 1,198 people, including 128 Americans, and helped push the United States into World War I. Ever since the ship went down, there have been suspicions that Lusitania was carrying live munitions. Under the rules of war, that would have made the liner a legitimate target, as the Germans maintained at the time.

The British government has always been evasive about the presence of munitions on Lusitania. Two cargo manifests were submitted; the second, filed after the ship sailed, indicated there were light munitions on board. Some believe the ship was carrying much more, however, and that the British Navy attempted to destroy the wreck in the 1950s to conceal its military cargo.

Now a team led by County Waterford-based diver Eoin McGarry, on behalf of Lusitania's American owner, Gregg Bemis, has recovered live ammunition from the wreck.

"The charge that the Lusitania was carrying war materiel is valid," says Bemis. "She was a legitimate target for the German submarine."

http://www.archaeology.org/0901/trenches/lusitania.html

That's actually pretty interesting but that example doesn't change the point, that is to say with modern technology isolationism is no longer feasible. The word is too small for the US to have hoped that it's financial capital be isolated from even a C rate group of mountain cave dwellers on the other side of the world. Take the US perspective out of the equation, and we can find examples for (almost?) any nation.

Actually, it totally undermines your criticism against isolationism. "We can't remain isolationist for it drags us into wars." No, that interpretation of cause-and-effect is wrong, and it's still wrong for today.

The reason why the US is grinding its own people to death by fighting "mountain cave dwellers" is because of previous US intervention. You have to follow the chain of events which have set the US into this trajectory that rushes headlong into more threats. You're being too short-sighted.

[GabonX]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

Actually the case isn't nearly as hard to make as you seem to think. As I've said before, those who do not understand this have missed the biggest lesson of the 20th century... Let me explain:

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

This is why intervention is both wise and necessary in many circumstances. Both preemption and postponement may require some form of intervention...

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

I'm not sure why you think I'm interested in having you address my posts, but since it's easy to repeat what has been said before I'll re-explain the flaw in your thinking...

What you consider to be blow back and anti-American sentiment is in reality the adaptation of Islam's violent and supremacist nature to fit the circumstances of our time. Their proclaimed motivations are less credible than Bush's stated goal of preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war, but as an example of how a person's words can differ from the real cause of their actions, I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

[chang50]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

Actually the case isn't nearly as hard to make as you seem to think. As I've said before, those who do not understand this have missed the biggest lesson of the 20th century... Let me explain:

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

This is why intervention is both wise and necessary in many circumstances. Both preemption and postponement may require some form of intervention...

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

I'm not sure why you think I'm interested in having you address my posts, but since it's easy to repeat what has been said before I'll re-explain the flaw in your thinking...

What you consider to be blow back and anti-American sentiment is in reality the adaptation of Islam's violent and supremacist nature to fit the circumstances of our time. Their proclaimed motivations are less credible than Bush's stated goal of preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war, but as an example of how a person's words can differ from the real cause of their actions, I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Let me explain, Hitler did not declare war on Britain or France in 1939,on the contrary they declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland,whose neutrality they had optimistically guaranteed.He did later declare war on the USA more than 2 years later.

[saxitoxin]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

Actually the case isn't nearly as hard to make as you seem to think. As I've said before, those who do not understand this have missed the biggest lesson of the 20th century... Let me explain:

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

This is why intervention is both wise and necessary in many circumstances. Both preemption and postponement may require some form of intervention...

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

I'm not sure why you think I'm interested in having you address my posts, but since it's easy to repeat what has been said before I'll re-explain the flaw in your thinking...

What you consider to be blow back and anti-American sentiment is in reality the adaptation of Islam's violent and supremacist nature to fit the circumstances of our time. Their proclaimed motivations are less credible than Bush's stated goal of preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war, but as an example of how a person's words can differ from the real cause of their actions, I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

1. To suggest Syria will eventually be in a position to attack the United States, and that potential future position requires military intervention is ridiculous. Syria is a barely-above 3rd world country of 22 million people that's 5,000 miles away from the U.S., a highly industrialized nation of 300 million. It has a secular government, like Libya did before the U.S. deposed it and replaced it with a radical Islamist regime.

2. Hezbollah is not a radical Islamist group. Hezbollah has a limited interest in Lebanon and Occupied Palestine, it does not have an Islamic globalist ideology. George W. Bush delisted Hezbollah as a terrorist organization in 2002 (before re-listing it under AIPAC pressure a few years later). It has dozens of seats in the Lebanese parliament. It has repeatedly denounced al-Qaeda. It enjoys almost unanimous support from Lebanese Christians. Hassan Nasrallah and hundreds of Mahdi Scouts even attended the homily of Benedict XVI in Beirut last month.

But what you're really suggesting is that U.S. and Zionist security are inextricably linked. Five years after Israel ceases to exist, how will life in Kansas City be different?

Banners Read: "Hezbollah Welcomes the Holy Father"


Hezbollah Fighters (Al-Muqawama) Escort Anti-Israeli Rabbis at Protest

[saxitoxin]

If President Ahmadinejad visited an Imam wearing an exotic costume and sunglasses in a lit room who said "When we say may our enemies be struck down during Ramadan, it shall be directed at Israel. Allah shall strike them down and kill them!" would that be dangerous religious fundamentalism?

Fortunately that didn't happen.

This is what happened:

During his weekly sermon, the spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party said his followers should pray for the annihilation of the enemies of the Jewish people during Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year), with an emphasis on Iran and Hezbollah.

“When we say ‘may our enemies be struck down’ on Rosh Hashana, it shall be directed at Iran. God shall strike them down and kill them,” said Yosef.

Before his comment, senior defense officials, including National Security Council head Ya'akov Amidror and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, had visited the rabbi to persuade him to support a possible Israeli attack on Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... 7cG8.gmail

Israeli political leadership join their crazed supreme guru in toasting to the death of 74 million Iranians.

[GreecePwns]

There's only one explanation for all of this.

You hate Jews.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem is that lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging. The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars, and ignoring that casts aside the lessons of the first half of the 20th Century. With the factor of modern technology the world is too small to allow a major power to ignore world events. Isolation is not a luxury that nations will again enjoy and policies that pursue it are in reality policies of postponement.

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

Actually the case isn't nearly as hard to make as you seem to think. As I've said before, those who do not understand this have missed the biggest lesson of the 20th century... Let me explain:

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

This is why intervention is both wise and necessary in many circumstances. Both preemption and postponement may require some form of intervention...

I'd address the rest of your post if you'd address the issue of blowback and spreading anti-American sentiment.

I'm not sure why you think I'm interested in having you address my posts, but since it's easy to repeat what has been said before I'll re-explain the flaw in your thinking...

What you consider to be blow back and anti-American sentiment is in reality the adaptation of Islam's violent and supremacist nature to fit the circumstances of our time. Their proclaimed motivations are less credible than Bush's stated goal of preventing Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction prior to the Iraq war, but as an example of how a person's words can differ from the real cause of their actions, I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

[GabonX]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.


My purposes here have been to share information, and later to defend the position that taking an active role in world affairs can and sometimes does achieve more desirable outcome against you're blanketed overcompensating assertions. I did not draw parallels between Syria's current state and the Third Reich as it's good policy to let Assad's regime and the rebels bleed each other. But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things? What about Israel?

We need leaders capable of making decisions based on whether action or inaction appears most prudent instead of doing nothing by policy when circumstance requires otherwise.

[saxitoxin]

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

SYRIA (supported by Saxi)
"We don't want a Beard-ocracy."

• - Lubanah Mushaweh, Ba'ath Party (Syria)

the beautiful first family of Syria celebrate Zeim's 2nd birthday - no burkas allowed

[2dimes]

Edit: I hate doing them once it's too late and you end up with the sign at the bottom but I had to add the "T" to event there that sentence was driving me silly.

"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, Justice & Development Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

That should be a T-shirt but these days you'd probably have to be at an American Christian event to wear it.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours, and of course surrounding yourself in groupthink is the cheaper way to go, but if you're unwilling to address the flaws in your position, then you'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity. Congratulations.

You've completely failed to understand incentives, rules of the games, and how people perceive the deaths of their friends from US bombs. It's okay, Gabon. There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking.

My purposes here have been to share information, and later to defend the position that taking an active role in world affairs can and sometimes does achieve more desirable outcome against you're blanketed overcompensating assertions. I did not draw parallels between Syria's current state and the Third Reich as it's good policy to let Assad's regime and the rebels bleed each other. But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things? What about Israel?

If those were your actual purposes, then you've failed miserably. You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases to avoid imagined consequences. You don't even understand the gaps of your imagination while doing so, which is evident from your inability to actually read those who question your stance.

This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

We need leaders capable of making decisions based on whether action or inaction appears most prudent instead of doing nothing by policy when circumstance requires otherwise.

By policy, you mean imagination.

[GabonX]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

1. Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

• If P, then Q.
  Not P.
  Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

I almost want to thank Saxi for making this so easy to illustrate with the following:

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)

He follows this with a picture of an Indian Muslim he claims is "some Turk" and another of warlord and dictator Bashar Assad with his wife and children (presented as though having a wife and children disqualifies someone from being a dictator and warlord).

I didn't actually take a stand on what the United States should do if Turkey is drawn into conflict. I asked a question to which Saxi responded with his usual craziness, and by attacking my credibility based on a position I hadn't taken.


Then you go on to do the same thing by trying to radicalize my position to an irrational extreme:

You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases

I have not asserted that "intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases" as you accuse. I've tried to show why intervention can be the proper course of action some of the time.

The irony here is that I've specifically stated I'd be happy for the United States to let the parties in Syria weaken themselves against each other, which I believe benefits the United States, yet you've attacked me as though I universally held the exact opposite position in every circumstance, presumably because our reasoning for why The US shouldn't get involved is different.

You'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity.

Yes, I'm exceptionally stupid. That's a winning proposition.

I would like to have a conversation with you about confirmation bias at some point as there are some things you should reflect on, but that's not for today.

There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking...

... This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

What's this about Washington think tanks? Is this your dream, or do you think that it's my dream, or perhaps is that your dream for me?

I recognize that such a position might be difficult for me to obtain, but frankly I believe I have a better opportunity where I am. You are however correct in that I am not looking for a debate, and that this is essentially a podium.

That's not just true of me, but to most of us here. As much as I may enjoy doing this on occasion, I simply don't have the time or will to go through and dissect all of these false arguments.

[nietzsche]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

1. Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

• If P, then Q.
  Not P.
  Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

Are you serious?

You say "I have cancer, I'm going to die!!", saxi says "you have no cancer you idiot, that's a rash, you are not going to die" then you pull

• If P, then Q.
  Not P.
  Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

that from wikipedia and tell saxi was wrong all along, that you are mortal so you will die.. ?

My analogy might not be perfect.

That's retarded man, seriously, you are claiming something, saxi knows you are pulling that what you claim freely from your mind without really knowing all or that you are just repeating what a professor said at a lecture for whatever reason. So saxi shows that your premise is false, in the eyes of everyone who thinks, showing that you really don't know what you are talking about, and you deduct from all this that you are a genius and saxi is an idiot because he failed at proving you wrong?

Yes, theoretically Q might still be truth.

[GabonX]

Are you serious?

You say "I have cancer, I'm going to die!!", saxi says "you have no cancer you idiot, that's a rash, you are not going to die" then you pull

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

that from wikipedia and tell saxi was wrong all along, that you are mortal so you will die.. ?

My analogy might not be perfect.

That's retarded man, seriously, you are claiming something, saxi knows you are pulling that what you claim freely from your mind without really knowing all or that you are just repeating what a professor said at a lecture for whatever reason. So saxi shows that your premise is false, in the eyes of everyone who thinks, showing that you really don't know what you are talking about, and you deduct from all this that you are a genius and saxi is an idiot because he failed at proving you wrong?

Yes, theoretically Q might still be truth.

It's more like I said "people sometimes need surgery for cancer, Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth both died of it"

Saxi replied "Lou Gehrig didn't die of cancer so you are wrong." *pictures*

You don't believe in treatment and BBS doesn't think surgery is a necessary practice because we now have chemotherapy and he thinks surgery only makes cancer worse..

Everyone is opposed to using chemotherapy if no one has cancer but I will have to defend myself from accusations I said everyone needs it...

[BigBallinStalin]

Nietz, it's a good try, but GabonX isn't interested in addressing the flaws of his argument. He's not even aware of how both of our positions can be correct (for reasons I already mentioned).

He's here to regurgitate things from class or from something he read, but anything that contradicts his worldview will be discounted as incorrect because he says so.

Unfortunately, he hasn't changed over the years.

[saxitoxin]

I understand that you're incapable of dealing with logical positions that counter yours

The problem is that the logical positions that supposedly counter mine are demonstrably false, or counter positions which I haven't actually taken.

An example of the first type that I referenced occurred when I took the position that:

1. Lack of intervention at times can be damaging as the path of isolation led the US to be drawn into two world wars.

Saxi responded with evidence that the US may not have been neutral prior to the deceleration of the first world war, to which you responded that my position was "completely undermined."

The progression of this logic is demonstrably false as the following formula shows:

• If P, then Q.
  Not P.
  Therefore, not Q.

Denying the antecedent

Instead of recognizing the flaw in this and reflecting on how you might improve, you've ignored everything and continued as though nothing was wrong as we all often criticize Symmetry for. You and Saxi then go on to attempt to discredit me by claiming I've taken positions which I haven't, or claimed my statements were absolute when they are not.

I almost want to thank Saxi for making this so easy to illustrate with the following:

But then what happens if Turkey is drawn in to things?

I am intrigued you're taking the side of the ultra-Islamist party running Turkey over the secular party running Syria.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)

He follows this with a picture of an Indian Muslim he claims is "some Turk" and another of warlord and dictator Bashar Assad with his wife and children (presented as though having a wife and children disqualifies someone from being a dictator and warlord).

I didn't actually take a stand on what the United States should do if Turkey is drawn into conflict. I asked a question to which Saxi responded with his usual craziness, and by attacking my credibility based on a position I hadn't taken.


Then you go on to do the same thing by trying to radicalize my position to an irrational extreme:

You've been hardcore and absolute in asserting that intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases

I have not asserted that "intervention is the way to go in nearly all cases" as you accuse. I've tried to show why intervention can be the proper course of action some of the time.

The irony here is that I've specifically stated I'd be happy for the United States to let the parties in Syria weaken themselves against each other, which I believe benefits the United States, yet you've attacked me as though I universally held the exact opposite position in every circumstance, presumably because our reasoning for why The US shouldn't get involved is different.

You'll forever be a glad bearer of confirmation bias and exceptional stupidity.

Yes, I'm exceptionally stupid. That's a winning proposition.

I would like to have a conversation with you about confirmation bias at some point as there are some things you should reflect on, but that's not for today.

There's plenty like you that hardly engage in any understanding. They're like you on the Internet, but hardly in think tanks and the Pentagon. You're just a tool of the State, spouting off tired rhetoric. Enjoy your measly status in the world outside of US politics and policymaking...

... This isn't a debate for you. It's another opportunity for you to stand on a podium and spout your nonsense. The federal government is not interested in you holding a serious job in their circles because you cannot think critically. You lack the skill and knowledge.

What's this about Washington think tanks? Is this your dream, or do you think that it's my dream, or perhaps is that your dream for me?

I recognize that such a position might be difficult for me to obtain, but frankly I believe I have a better opportunity where I am. You are however correct in that I am not looking for a debate, and that this is essentially a podium.

That's not just true of me, but to most of us here. As much as I may enjoy doing this on occasion, I simply don't have the time or will to go through and dissect all of these false arguments.

You said:

• The path of isolation led to the US being drawn into two world wars

• http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3928842

Therefore, if I prove either (a) the US did not pursue a path of isolation, or, (b) the U.S.' pursuit of the path of isolation did not lead to war, I have disproven your statement.

Here - http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3928865 - I proved "A" false (the U.S. did not pursue a path a isolation). Ergo your statement is false. Since this statement is used to example your thesis "... lack of intervention has proven to be just as damaging [as non-intervention]" you are now advancing a thesis with no real-world examples to support it.

You then went on to say -

• With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time)

- which is so ridiculous it doesn't require a response. The U.S. is one of the very few nations in the world that has the capability to attack nations with which it doesn't share a land border.