8-Sep-18 World View -- Turkey fails to prevent Russia and Iran from mass slaughter in Idlib, Syria / The Greek Tragedy

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Assad is the good guy in Syria: without his competent leadership and Iron Hand, Syria would have long ago gone under; it would have enslaved by Islamist barbarism and superstition.

Quite true, other than the "good guy" part,.. but perhaps something more "positive" than Assad's reign might have evolved after a short interlude of "Islamist Hell"?

..then again, for my own consistency, since I believe that this world is the best possible one, and no other "alternate" scenario would produce "better results", I'm forced to agree that what is is for the best.

But I don't have to agree that any of the actors in this little drama are good guys or bad guys. Both type of "guy" are the tools of "the implied universal classroom teacher", as it were.

Nā mahalo! <shaka!>

[Cynic Hero 86]

What Assad is doing in Syria and how he is conducting his campaign to crush the rebels is simply standard counterinsurgency warfare, every sensible country does this when confronted with insurgent warfare. The British and French did this when they were great powers even later during their decline Post-WW2, The Russians routinely do this when confronted with such situations, both sides in the Chinese civil war of the 1920s to 1950 did this. Even We did this post-civil war with reconstruction, the campaign to secure the Philippines after 1898 and during the Vietnam war. It was only the globalist tyrannical leanings of the boomers that prevented sensible tactics and strategy from being implemented during the Iraq war. Assad is waging standard anti-insurgency warfare and he is fundamentally a good person and a good leader.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

What Assad is doing in Syria and how he is conducting his campaign to crush the rebels is simply standard counterinsurgency warfare, every sensible country does this when confronted with insurgent warfare. The British and French did this when they were great powers even later during their decline Post-WW2, The Russians routinely do this when confronted with such situations, both sides in the Chinese civil war of the 1920s to 1950 did this. Even We did this post-civil war with reconstruction, the campaign to secure the Philippines after 1898 and during the Vietnam war. It was only the globalist tyrannical leanings of the boomers that prevented sensible tactics and strategy from being implemented during the Iraq war. Assad is waging standard anti-insurgency warfare and he is fundamentally a good person and a good leader.

A good person tries to minimize the suffering of innocents.

A good leader leads as an example of a good person to his "led".

Minimal "effectiveness" can be preferable to a leader to maintain his "goodness".

Everyone will judge after the fact whether a leader was a good person and a good leader, by his balancing of "effectiveness" and the suffering of innocents.

Opinions are like cowboy hats and assholes,.. everybody has one (or eventually wants one), and some are smellier than others.

..most people don't want smelly ones. Some succeed,.. some don't.

[CH86]

What Assad is doing in Syria and how he is conducting his campaign to crush the rebels is simply standard counterinsurgency warfare, every sensible country does this when confronted with insurgent warfare. The British and French did this when they were great powers even later during their decline Post-WW2, The Russians routinely do this when confronted with such situations, both sides in the Chinese civil war of the 1920s to 1950 did this. Even We did this post-civil war with reconstruction, the campaign to secure the Philippines after 1898 and during the Vietnam war. It was only the globalist tyrannical leanings of the boomers that prevented sensible tactics and strategy from being implemented during the Iraq war. Assad is waging standard anti-insurgency warfare and he is fundamentally a good person and a good leader.

A good person tries to minimize the suffering of innocents.

A good leader leads as an example of a good person to his "led".

Minimal "effectiveness" can be preferable to a leader to maintain his "goodness".

Everyone will judge after the fact whether a leader was a good person and a good leader, by his balancing of "effectiveness" and the suffering of innocents.

Opinions are like cowboy hats and assholes,.. everybody has one (or eventually wants one), and some are smellier than others.

..most people don't want smelly ones. Some succeed,.. some don't.

Morality aside, Bashar al-assad is far superior in terms of competence than the kind of leaders you boomers like. While Churchill did provide inspirational leadership during the battle of Britain, As a strategist he was abysmal, note his failure in gallipoli before during WW1 and later in WW2 Churchill's incompetent suggestions of opening a Balkan front in the war instead of doing Overlord. Its no wonder FDR ignored him and listened to stalin's strategic suggestions instead. Macarthur was another incompetent, it was Halsey, Eichelberger, Holland Smith, Le May and Krueger who won the war with Japan. Patton and Bradley won the war with Germany along with Zhukov on the Russian front. Macarthur was an incompetent whose decisions led directly to Bataan, it should of been him, not wainwright who should have went into captivity with his troops, it should have been wainwright who was evacuated. We then somehow gave Mac another chance then nearly a decade later Macarthur Nearly bungled the Korean war. Then there is John's favorite leaders: the pre-war french leadership whose generals were aging geriatrics in their 70s and 80s and then they won why the Germans defeated them easily. President Trump was right to mock france referencing their WW2 performance during the recent alliance talks.

What boombers call freedom, the young call tyranny. Assad is a good person, a GREAT person in fact.

[John]

> Then there is John's favorite leaders: the pre-war french
> leadership whose generals were aging geriatrics in their 70s and
> 80s and then they won why the Germans defeated them
> easily. President Trump was right to mock france referencing their
> WW2 performance during the recent alliance talks.

> What boombers call freedom, the young call tyranny. Assad is a
> good person, a GREAT person in fact.

It's worth once again reminding everyone, especially those who have
not yet been acquainted with CH86, that he also thinks that Hitler was
a good person, a GREAT person in fact, which is totally delusional.
His statement about me and pre-war french leaders is totally
delusional. He claims to represent the opinions of all Millennials,
but I can't recall ever meeting a Millennial who would agree with
anything he says. In fact, everything that CH86 says appears to be
totally delusional.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

You'll notice that CH doesn't address the issue of the "suffering of innocents".

..that's where his opinion(s) starts to smell of long term unwashed butt.

[CH86]

Is Assad intentionally Killing Americans? As far as I know, he is not; therefore Assad by definition is not an enemy. Are Putin and Xi expansionist yes, but even in their wildest delusions they both know that the Americas would have to be conquered last only after they have conquered the rest of the world. The Boomers selfishness is a narcissistic "selfless selfishness" If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, why aren't the Ukrainians building up their own military and defense capabilities? Same with Taiwan vs China. Why should Americans have go to fight and die for regions where we have no direct interests and who are too lazy to govern themselves properly. Are boomers so selfish and washy-eyed that they want to abolish the very concept of ethnic cleansing or the very concept of militarization and expansionism? Assad isn't killing Americans, therefore we should not care about what he is doing in Syria. The rebels forfeited their civil protection by rebelling against the Syrian government, whether that Syrian Rebels live or die is of no concern to non-globalists within the west.

[Useless degree]

Is Assad intentionally Killing Americans? As far as I know, he is not; therefore Assad by definition is not an enemy. Are Putin and Xi expansionist yes, but even in their wildest delusions they both know that the Americas would have to be conquered last only after they have conquered the rest of the world. The Boomers selfishness is a narcissistic "selfless selfishness" If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, why aren't the Ukrainians building up their own military and defense capabilities? Same with Taiwan vs China. Why should Americans have go to fight and die for regions where we have no direct interests and who are too lazy to govern themselves properly. Are boomers so selfish and washy-eyed that they want to abolish the very concept of ethnic cleansing or the very concept of militarization and expansionism? Assad isn't killing Americans, therefore we should not care about what he is doing in Syria. The rebels forfeited their civil protection by rebelling against the Syrian government, whether that Syrian Rebels live or die is of no concern to non-globalists within the west.

You seem to forget that countries have their own interests. Letting Russia and China take over the world and control the Seven Seas is not in America's interests. You've never studied history. If you had, you would realize that countries move against or help other countries to protect their own interests. Letting Assad ethnically cleanse Syria has lead to disaster in Europe. Letting China take control of the South China Sea and Taiwan would give them a strangle hold on global trade. Letting Russia conquer Eastern Europe would lead to a massive refugee crisis, devastating economic destabilization, and most likely be a spring board for the invasion of Western Europe. How would any of this benefit the US?

Japan and Nazi Germany would have eventually attacked the US if they had conquered Europe and Asia. Should America have waited for that moment to declare war?

I don't know whether I should take you seriously or not.

[CH86]

Is Assad intentionally Killing Americans? As far as I know, he is not; therefore Assad by definition is not an enemy. Are Putin and Xi expansionist yes, but even in their wildest delusions they both know that the Americas would have to be conquered last only after they have conquered the rest of the world. The Boomers selfishness is a narcissistic "selfless selfishness" If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, why aren't the Ukrainians building up their own military and defense capabilities? Same with Taiwan vs China. Why should Americans have go to fight and die for regions where we have no direct interests and who are too lazy to govern themselves properly. Are boomers so selfish and washy-eyed that they want to abolish the very concept of ethnic cleansing or the very concept of militarization and expansionism? Assad isn't killing Americans, therefore we should not care about what he is doing in Syria. The rebels forfeited their civil protection by rebelling against the Syrian government, whether that Syrian Rebels live or die is of no concern to non-globalists within the west.

You seem to forget that countries have their own interests. Letting Russia and China take over the world and control the Seven Seas is not in America's interests. You've never studied history. If you had, you would realize that countries move against or help other countries to protect their own interests. Letting Assad ethnically cleanse Syria has lead to disaster in Europe. Letting China take control of the South China Sea and Taiwan would give them a strangle hold on global trade. Letting Russia conquer Eastern Europe would lead to a massive refugee crisis, devastating economic destabilization, and most likely be a spring board for the invasion of Western Europe. How would any of this benefit the US?

Japan and Nazi Germany would have eventually attacked the US if they had conquered Europe and Asia. Should America have waited for that moment to declare war?

I don't know whether I should take you seriously or not.

A Catastrophic outcome outlined above would only occur in the context of a global trading economy and only if the world continued in its open borders/demilitarization delusions. Now if Ukraine was allowed to develop its own Nukes and army as soon as Russia began it's destablilization efforts back in 2014. Such would not be possible. The allies currently have no incentive to militarize because they are reliant on the US umbrella, But that umbrella is being stretched thin, A chronic problem since 9/11.

Assad ethnically cleansing Syria is being disastrous in Europe only because the boomers forced fed letting the refugees in. Had the people of Europe been allowed to choose whether to let in the refugees or not, like they were supposed to under their constitutions; the refugee crisis would not have occurred and the refugee camps would have been in Turkey and North Africa.

[FishbellykanakaDude]

CH is fun to listen to, in much the same way that listening to surf crashing on rocks is fun.

It's rhythmic; it's got a "theme" to it; it's strangely informative and edifying while being essentially meaningless brown noise, although grey noise does actually seem more fitting.

His one-note philosophy to save the world is to allow him (and people like him) to kill all those who create "problems" within his "borders" while all those outside his "borders" must be prohibited (via some unspecified mechanism) from interfering with him in any way.

But,.. all that being said, he is the very mouthpiece of evil within humanity, and well worth "meditating on" as one should meditate on the pounding surf to understand bits of what the ocean is about.


AND, Ch is not always wrong. I agree with several things he has suggested, but not necessarily in the way he would implement them. His hiding behind "borders" to allow the unnecessary over application of suffering on innocents is my primary "problem" with him. Of course he can easily redefine "innocents" and "necessary" and "over application of suffering" to counter my objections, but that's neither here nor there, other than as a "tool" for him to try to convince someone OTHER than me that his "wisdom" should be followed.

Anyway, he is "fun" to listen to.