[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Cyanohydrin)
the pursuit of "American interests" i.e. 'New American Century' (they don't bother to define what American interests actually are - these interests have little to do with the American people) using the projection of military force; ie, might makes right. Of course they don't all agree, it's an ideology like any other (and a deeply unpleasant one at that).

That's not what a neoconservative is. I'm not saying that these people did not want American force or whatnot, I'm trying to clear up some of the definitional confusion that makes debates on the issue impossible, so if you'll allow me neoconservatism is not based on the notion of American force, and it is certainly not predicated on a 'might makes right' attitude (quite the opposite - it campaigns for moral objectivity rather than simply morality through force).

Spoiler:

Show

The neoconservative movement is often said to have its 'godfather' in Leo Strauss, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a philosopher who specialised in the classics. He was looked upon with disdain (and still is) because studying the Greeks and Romans is considered to be a mark of elitism, and a mere interest in Machiavelli is evidence of something very sinister. What he believed was that the present age (the reductionist age) had failed philosophy. He felt that our abandonment of the idea of natural rights had led to an age of moral dissolution. If no one could say exactly what is right and wrong, which is what most modern philosophy asserts, then liberal societies are incapable of defending their own existence and instead open themselves up to enemies that would seek to destroy them from within. His biggest enemy was relativism - the idea that moral principles differ between different races, societies, eras, and so on. He believed that we ought to look back to the classical Greeks like Plato and Herodotus, who understood the idea of good and evil much better than we do. Strauss said that in his own era, "when we were brought face to face with tyranny - with a kind of tyranny that surpassed the boldest imagination of the most powerful thinkers of the past - our political science failed to recognise it." He was referring to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. It should not be that we are interpreting Plato. If we read Plato we would see that he is interpreting us. As Strauss said, "The need for natural right and wrong is as evident today as it has been for centuries. To reject natural right is tantamount to saying that all right is positive right, and this means that what is right and what is wrong is determined exclusively by the legislators of the courts of the various countries." This, he said, was the greatest threat to freedom that we face. What Strauss identified was that liberal democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction in relativism. This is why we need leaders who do not pander to the masses or become embroiled in mass culture.

The main disciple of Strauss was Allan Bloom, a man who believed that liberal education was the counterpoision to mass culture, relativism and tyranny, but that the 'counterculture' movement of the sixties was destroying all that was good about liberal education by forcing it to accept that other ways of life and other moral codes were just as 'valid' as that of liberal democracy and liberty. The American mind became so open to other ways of living that it became closed. It could not stand up for itself and it collapsed. The tyranny of mass culture is the worst as nobody, in any sense, 'believes' in it. It was only the institutions that had been harmed by the counterculture movement that could save Americans from their own demise. And as many people read The Closing of the American Mind, they found that the concerns voiced were shared by millions of Americans and Westerners who felt that their values were under threat and that they were on the wrong path. In this sense, and it's important to note this since neocons are often said to be shady intellectuals, neoconservatism is a popular movement.

The neconservative movement rejected the old aristocractic conservatism and sought to universalise the American conservative values of liberty and the rule of law. In this sense it is often said that neocons want some kind of American empire, or at the very least for America to go about toppling enemy nations to impose democracy. In actual fact, neocons differ widely (more than most other ideologues) on how to implement their goals. The rise of neoconservatism took place alongside the threat of the Soviet Union when many traditional conservatives and right-wingers were not being forceful enough in their criticism of the communist tyranny, much like people today ignore massacres and genocides for the sake of 'stability' and 'global alliances'. What Allan Bloom witnessed on the campus many others noticed in society at large: the values and presumptions which had successfully underpinned society in America and the West from its beginnings were being openly and popularly attacked - and that this attack was taking place at all levels of society. It is the duty of all, say the neocons, to oppose this and to stand up for traditional liberal democracy.

10.) Paranoia from 9/11 and the desire to attack another country to avenge the 9/11 attack

I have mostly cut out what you wrote since I don't consider it relevant to my original point, as you said, however I have trouble letting this pass. What 9/11 represented was not just another criminal action like that of 20th century terrorist groups who captured buildings or took hostages, but the coordinated, military-scale attack of a globally networked terrorist organisation who took advantage of security vulnarabilities and then found sanctuary in a rights-abusing authoritarian failed state. 9/11 brought home the realities of 21st century warfare - the fact that a small group of terrorists could perform an attack on civilians on such a scale and use their contacts in failed states of terror to get away with it/plan more attacks. This brought home the reality of the possibility of such groups acquiring more sophisticated weaponry (possibly dirty bombs or more destructive WMD) and using them to attack large civilian centres, thereby rendering the state incapable of performing its most important duty - the protection of the security of the citizens and ensuring that said citizens can perform their legal rights without the threat or fear of violence.

(Apologies for typos and shoddy formatting, I did this on an iphone.)

[MxSK]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
--

Unrelated to the post, but noticed the Hitchens article on Iran in your sig and wondered if you've read his extended article on his time travelling throughout the country:

2005, just before ahmadinejad was elected (4 pages)
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...itchens-200507

I'm amazed at how much he understood just from the one short trip.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
You want to know why Syria shot down a jet belonging to a hostile power who has openly suggested declaring war on Syria, and had invaded its airspace on multiple occasions?

Not the brightest bulb, are you?

Not sure why I'm bothering to waste my time with you but even so.

Nations don't just shoot down each other's jets when they enter their airspace. To do so risks war. Take the UK as an example. The Russians regularly send bombers that could carry nuclear weapons into our airspace just to probe our defences. We don't shoot them down we scramble fighters and turn them away. For the Syrians to shoot down a lone reconisance plane that was allegedly shot down just inside Syrian airspace is odd.

[MxSK]

Ok so the guest list for the upcoming ball is out:

Annan: Iran, Saudi not invited at Syria conference
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/articl...ce-3665711.php

So what's the aim of this conference again? lol Take the two regional powers who have directly intervened in the country (picking opposing sides) and then exclude them from a conference on how to solve the problem.

I'm still not sure where i stand on the whole "isolate iran and pretend it doesn't exist" policy whenever the US tries to deal with problems in the middle east.
On the one hand, you would be talking to the mullahs.
On the other hand, just because you pretend iran doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It will still be there doing as much as it can to have influence. And whatever plan you put in place, its effectiveness is always in question as long as you're ignoring that fact.

I mean imagine making a policy on north korea while pretending China doesn't exist. At the end of the day, you have to come to terms with whoever who has opposing interests to you. Otherwise, whatever you do, you're going to have conflict.

I guess it makes it difficult when the morons in Iran make it impossible to restore diplomatic relations....

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
First of all, it's almost certain that Syria would have warned the jet to leave. The fact that it made multiple incursions on Syrian airspace would support the notion that it was a deliberate provocation by the Turkish. When warnings to leave fail, what other course of action was open to the Syrians? The warplane posed a threat to civilians, and the air defences dealt with it.

Consider if the Russians started arming home-grown extremists in the UK to incite a civil war, openly saying they wouldn't rule out "military action" against the UK, then sending a warplane into British territory. What do you think would happen to that warplane, if it refused to leave?

The pro-war brigade on this forum astound me. You think it's perfectly acceptable to arm terrorist factions so they can wage war on their own people, but any attempt by a government to quell that violence is deemed a "crackdown on democracy". You think it's perfectly acceptable to verbally threaten war against a country, then condemn them as being "aggressive" when they shoot down a warplane that violated their airspace. You call it "collateral damage" when your precision-guided bombs kill civilians, but you call it "slaughter" when some civilians are accidentally killed in crossfire between Government and terrorist forces.

We don't know if they did warn the jet off. Syria apologised for shooting down the plane then helped try to find the pilot. These aren't the actions of a nation that knows it is in the right. Secondly there is plenty they could have done. Namely what I said the same any other nation does when it has an airspace incursion scramble jets to go and take a look at what is up there. They would have seen it was an unarmed recon jet and got it to leave. Had it tried to stay in Syrian airspace and was a threat then they should have shot it down

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by MxSK)
Unrelated to the post, but noticed the Hitchens article on Iran in your sig and wondered if you've read his extended article on his time travelling throughout the country:

2005, just before ahmadinejad was elected (4 pages)
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...itchens-200507

I'm amazed at how much he understood just from the one short trip.

Great link; thanks, although I'm sure this was republished in Arguably which I'm in the middle of reading.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
You're talk of what a nation "normally does" doesn't apply, because normally nations aren't being threatened with war by the international community. Supposing that fighter jet was on it's way to airstrike civilians, and Syria did nothing to stop it, you'd be on here demanding to know why no one took any actions to protect civilians.

NATO have spent the last year talking about how they want to send in warplanes to wage war on Syria. You seriously think it's anyone's fault but their own when they send in a warplane and it gets shot down by defence systems?

By shooting down the jet Syria made the chance of war far more likely than had they scrambled jets to intercept. They would have easily see it was a recon plane

Actually I'd be wondering why the Turks would start a war with a single airstrike from one aircraft more than anything. And an unarmed one at that... Of course the Syrians could have worked this out for themselves had they actually sent fighters up rather than just shooting first and asking questions later.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
Given that NATO has been ranting for months that it wants to send in warplanes to bomb Syria, can you blame the Syrians for being keen to shoot down a NATO jet that refuses to leave Syrian airspace?

If the situation were reversed you would feel differently. Supposing Assad had been calling for "military action" against the British people, and then sent a fighter jet into British airspace which then ignored requests to leave - Wouldn't you want it shot down for the threat it posed?

Source? NATO wanting to send planes to Syria, not just that they could if asked.

No I would't feel differently. If the UK shot down a plane that was going in and out of UK airspace without scrambling fighters to scare it if I would be concerned that the UK had overreacted and was at risk of starting a war over a stupid reason. I know this is how I feel because the Russians send bombers into our airspace and I would't want them shot down unless they posed a direct threat.

[MxSK]

Picture of Iranian foreign minister temporarily arrested on arrival in cyprus:
https://twitter.com/essikhan/status/.../photo/1/large



[Background:
He was on a european no fly list as part of sanctions (during his time as head of iranian atomic organisation), but the europeans had to take him off when he became foreign minister.
So Cyprus authorities arrested him and then released him and apologised for the misunderstanding.

Unrelated interesting fact: He did nuclear physics at MIT for the Shahs nuclear program but when the revolution happened became part of the IRI establishment.
He was BEFORE the US govt. sponsored nuclear physics @MIT program for iranians. I believe he was there when those students showed up.
I read that when the revolution happened -> half the students from that program stayed in the USA, the other half returned to iran. Half of those who returned did/are doing work for regime, the other half are doing private/unrelated work]


EDIT: lol, now there's a fars news article denying he was arrested... pathological liars... they just can't stop. June's FARCE list: "90,000 troop war games w/ russia, iran, syria", then the Morsi interview and now this...

EDIT 2: Foreign persian language papers are saying cyprus source confirming the story, regime sources are spreading mis-information and a fake picture to try discredit the real one. I guess it kind is embarrassing to have your FM arrested. lol

[Aj12]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85R0KT20120628
Saudis prepare an oil oilpipeline that can bypass the straits of hormuz

[Stalin]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
It's quite obvious that NATO want a war with Syria. If they don't, then why on earth are they arming extremist nutters in Syria and getting them to attack the Government?

I don't necessarily think NATO want a war per se, but rather that the organisation is being dragged into the conflict because of the deterioration in Syrian-Turkish relations, not to mention the fact that the U.S. - especially because of the election and massive shift towards Asia - and major European allies aren't keen on intervening in another Muslim country. A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia sounds about right here.

If the Russians had openly talked about declaring war, or "military action", on Britain, had a track record of dropping precision-guided bombs onto civilians, then sent a warplane into British airspace which refused to leave when ordered, I would argue that Britain would be justified in shooting it down. Because if the jet is from a hostile a hostile nation, and refuses to leave, then your population are probably in danger from it.

That's precisely the problem here: the Turkish reconnaissance aircraft, as far as I know, was not warned by the Syrians.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
You're still missing the point. If NATO hadn't been provoking Syria for months, and funding political extremists within Syria to attack the Government, then yes - I think it would be over-reacting too. But given the special circumstances, I would say that Syria was justified in doing what it did.

It's quite obvious that NATO want a war with Syria. If they don't, then why on earth are they arming extremist nutters in Syria and getting them to attack the Government?

If the Russians had openly talked about declaring war, or "military action", on Britain, had a track record of dropping precision-guided bombs onto civilians, then sent a warplane into British airspace which refused to leave when ordered, I would argue that Britain would be justified in shooting it down. Because if the jet is from a hostile a hostile nation, and refuses to leave, then your population are probably in danger from it.

Again source that NATO has been provoking Syria and supplying weapons to the rebels? Individual governments have been but as far as I am aware NATO itself has not been involved like that.

How do you know it was warned? An unarmed recon plane is not about to stay in hostile airspace if it thinks there is a risk of being shot down. Why are you so sure it was warned because as things stand it is far more likely that it was not warned. Why would your population be endangered by a single recon plane?

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
There is no such country as "NATO", so obviously the individual governments in that alliance do it.



You're the one coming out with claims that it wasnt warned, where's your evidence? Standard procedure is to warn, why do you think procedure was not followed in this case? Why was the plane deliberately going back and forth in and out of Syrian airspace in the first place? Given that several NATO members have openly talked about declaring war on Syria, I think it's safe to say that ANY Nato aircraft in Syrian airspace is a threat to civilians.

That's not the same as NATO doing it or having anything to do with it.

Standard procedure would also be to scramble jets to see what the hell was going on. We can't assume anything about this situation was standard. The Turks also have been claiming that the jet was in their airspace and was not warned.

Oh look Syria attempted to shoot down one of the rescue planes too. Want to explain how they were defending themselves here?

[Stalin]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
Has there been any indications that it wasn't warned?

Keep in mind it wasn't a single incursion of the airspace, it was numerous incursions. That supports the notion that it was warned to leave, and when it didn't, it was shot down.

Every media report I've read have said the contrary, and the Turkish government claims that the pilots weren't notified (fourth paragraph) - but what is more concerning is that, according to the Telegraph, the aircraft was shot down 13 nautical miles from Syria.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ver-Syria.html

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
Perhaps there wasn't time to scramble jets? Perhaps jets were scrambled. All we know for sure is that it made multiple violations of Syrian airspace, at a time when it's government is part of an alliance that is funding political extremist groups within Syria.

The article isn't clear about several things. First of all, I think the question of whether this is actually true, or complete rubbish needs to be asked. If the British Government want war with Syria, I'd hardly consider the BBC to be an unbiased source of truthful information.

2. What sort of aircraft was sent in to the supposed "rescue"?
3. Was it in Syrian airspace and if so did it have permission to be there?

Why would't there be time to scramble jets to intercept a lone recon plane that may well have been only just within Syrian airspace. You make it sound as if the Turks were sending a few hundred bombers towards Damascus not a lone recon jet.

So do you struggle to read?
"Turkey's deputy PM said the CASA search and rescue plane, looking for the F-4 Phantom jet, was not brought down.


here's a pretty picture too.

Well since the Syrians have been helping search for the pilots I assume that yes it did have permission to be there. This whole second episode just shows how screwed up Syrian air defence is.

It quotes the Turkish government. It dosen't matter what the source is. I really don't understand why you are defending the Syrian government here. Its pretty clear cut. There own government issued an apology and helped look for the pilots so even they know that they are in the wrong.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
I'm well aware of what Turkey is claiming to have happened. There's been a military incident between two nations. The politicians of Syria are saying one thing, and the politicians of Turkey are saying another. That's why I'm not keen to just take the Turkish at their word that it was "just" a recon plane (That still doesn't explain why it was in Syrian airspace anyway), just as I would not expect you to believe everything the Syrians say. Both nations will obviously say that they were in the right. Expecting a totally unbiased account of what actually happened from the politicians of the two nations is unrealistic. The truth is normally somewhere in between.

It may indeed have been a case of Syria over-reacting. However if that is the case, NATO only has itself to blame. If you arm political extremists and get them to attack the Syrian Government, and openly talk about war with Syria, can you honestly blame them for being concerned when you send a warplane into their airspace?

So judge it by Syrias actions. had they not apologised and offered to help find the pilot I would have thought something strange had gone on but since that's how they reacted it seems hard to believe anything else

[Stalin]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
That may have been where it landed, but why was it in Syrian airspace in the first place?

Probably began taking pictures of Syrian territory.

The Kremlin sends its bombers into British territory all the time, though, except it will receive a warning and either a Tornado or Eurofighter will escort it away. Neither happened during the Turkish incident.

[Stalin]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
But the Russians haven't been arming groups within Britain and getting them to start a civil war with the Government have they?

If they did, they could probably expect a more confrontational approach.

Syria and Turkey are not at war, however. A proxy war may, nevertheless, be taking place, but an inter-state war certainly is not, ergo the rules of engagement must be respected - a warning should have been given before shooting the reconnaissance aircraft.

Had 20 or so F-16's been descending upon Damascus then yes, the intent would have been blatantly clear, and Syrian air defence systems would have been allowed to stop them; an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft from the 1970's, however, is not a fully upgraded F-16.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ozrLK_gTVc

The funeral of four Syrian military service personnel killed by extremist group "Free Syrian Army". Four families who will never see their proud soldier come home, four families whose children who will grow up never knowing daddy.

Anyone else notice how deranged the rebels seem - Calling themselves an "Army" in one sentence, and then claiming to be "peaceful civilians" the next?

For someone who claims to question everything you sure accept the Syrian line all too easily.

[Aj12]

(Original post by GwrxVurfer)
Aj this did happen. The "Free Syrian Army" admitted killing service personnel. They even seem proud of it for some reason.

People seem so detached from the reality of war. What gave the "Free Syrian Army" the right to murder service personnel? The partners of the soldiers will now need to sit their children down and explain that their dad was killed in the line of duty. Through no fault of their own, Daddy will no longer be there to read them bedtime stories, take them to a football game, or be there to give advice on their first girlfriend. And it's almost certain that his killers will never be jailed for the murder.

I don't understand the pure hatred these people in the "Free Syrian Army" group must have towards society, if they honestly think they are entitled to wage a war against their own people like this. Do they know that what they are doing is wrong, or do they honestly believe that it is acceptable in modern society to kill, and threaten death to all those that don't follow them? There's nothing peaceful about them. They have named themselves an "army", and have declared themselves at war with the Government, so why do they complain when the Syrian military treats them like a hostile army?

What gave the Syrian establishment the right to murder what were at first peaceful protests? What gave them the right to murder thousands back in the 1980's? You seem to think the FSA just appeared and started attacking troops. People started protesting they stayed peaceful during months of attacks on them by the army, these peaceful protests are still going on but some Syrians joined the FSA and started fighting back. Don't bother replying to this just like with Libya you will spout a load of regime apologist bull****