Syria

[dc.]

Two thoughts...

 

Not meaning to hijack to be about anything else but I will always call out sources because I think they really matter even in sorts reporting. It's actually almost like not trusting either side in the fighting despite who looks right in the moment.

 

I agree Syria is critical. I also agree it's similar to Ukraine though I think there is a clearer good guy in Ukraine. But I am still not sold on avoiding involvement in globalization... Like with Ukraine, lack of involvement could be bowing to some major shift of power or influence internationally like Russia - not getting involved has costs, it's not just a Europe issue. But it's hard because where do you draw a line on whose issues matter more and how do you discern the right from the wrong and how do you look into the future?

 

I still think Syria being left alone is a huge risk. Should we go in at all or alone? No. But do we let a dictator go or let chemical warfare ensue? Do we allow Russian and Iranian interests dominate?

 

Certainly our history of getting involved wrongly hurts any choice... But that's where some international consensus becomes valuable and necessary. And a mistake in supporting bad leaders in Turkey or Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we continue that elsewhere.

 

Does democracy come with risks? Yes. We know that. But I think it wins in the end;I think democracy makes better choices in the long run. I think democracy is a better friend and easier to trust in the long run - but it certainly will require support, just like we've had to support elections and fairness in Germany post WWII, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in eastern Europe post cold war.

[papasmurfbell]

Two thoughts...

 

Not meaning to hijack to be about anything else but I will always call out sources because I think they really matter even in sorts reporting. It's actually almost like not trusting either side in the fighting despite who looks right in the moment.

 

I agree Syria is critical. I also agree it's similar to Ukraine though I think there is a clearer good guy in Ukraine. But I am still not sold on avoiding involvement in globalization... Like with Ukraine, lack of involvement could be bowing to some major shift of power or influence internationally like Russia - not getting involved has costs, it's not just a Europe issue. But it's hard because where do you draw a line on whose issues matter more and how do you discern the right from the wrong and how do you look into the future?

 

I still think Syria being left alone is a huge risk. Should we go in at all or alone? No. But do we let a dictator go or let chemical warfare ensue? Do we allow Russian and Iranian interests dominate?

 

Certainly our history of getting involved wrongly hurts any choice... But that's where some international consensus becomes valuable and necessary. And a mistake in supporting bad leaders in Turkey or Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we continue that elsewhere.

 

Does democracy come with risks? Yes. We know that. But I think it wins in the end;I think democracy makes better choices in the long run. I think democracy is a better friend and easier to trust in the long run - but it certainly will require support, just like we've had to support elections and fairness in Germany post WWII, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in eastern Europe post cold war.

We have their chem weapons in our possession.

[dc.]

Right. But does that not count as intervention? Picking a side/evening the field for the rebels?

 

They didn't just hand them over without a big international push led by US.

[papasmurfbell]

We have no boots on the ground or planes in the air.

[thundercleetz]

Two thoughts...

Not meaning to hijack to be about anything else but I will always call out sources because I think they really matter even in sorts reporting. It's actually almost like not trusting either side in the fighting despite who looks right in the moment.

I agree Syria is critical. I also agree it's similar to Ukraine though I think there is a clearer good guy in Ukraine. But I am still not sold on avoiding involvement in globalization... Like with Ukraine, lack of involvement could be bowing to some major shift of power or influence internationally like Russia - not getting involved has costs, it's not just a Europe issue. But it's hard because where do you draw a line on whose issues matter more and how do you discern the right from the wrong and how do you look into the future?

I still think Syria being left alone is a huge risk. Should we go in at all or alone? No. But do we let a dictator go or let chemical warfare ensue? Do we allow Russian and Iranian interests dominate?

Certainly our history of getting involved wrongly hurts any choice... But that's where some international consensus becomes valuable and necessary. And a mistake in supporting bad leaders in Turkey or Saudi Arabia doesn't mean we continue that elsewhere.

Does democracy come with risks? Yes. We know that. But I think it wins in the end;I think democracy makes better choices in the long run. I think democracy is a better friend and easier to trust in the long run - but it certainly will require support, just like we've had to support elections and fairness in Germany post WWII, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in eastern Europe post cold war.

I certainly see where you are coming from better now, thanks for clarifying. Now I would be more inclined to your line of thought if we knew 100% who was doing what in Syria. We don't know who is using the chemicals weapons. I've heard this before with Iraq. We get involved, then later find out the rebels were the ones using the chemical weapons and now Al-Qaeda runs Syria with guerrilla tactics massacring ethnic and religious minorities and are completely un-negotiable with. Since we cannot rule this likely scenario out with any certainty, any action would be irresponsible and rash.

 

Getting involved is a no win situation, do we let Russian and Iranian interests dominate? Or do we get involved and let Turkey manipulate us for their interests and push Russia, Iran, and China closer to each other? I don't like the sound of either.

 

And this all ties back to democracy, does intervening in Syria really promote democracy? It further alienates Russia and Iran in diplomacy talks, gives risk that a terrorist organization could run the Syrian government, as well as rewards Turkey for promoting anti-democracy characteristics such as restricting freedom of speech.

 

To clarify, what I meant by not meddling in globalization is the whole war machine and monitoring of the rest of the world aspect.

[dc.]

Just as an added twist to this discussion- anyone heard the news that Jews in east Ukraine are being asked to register with the govt? Somewhat unclear whether this is by rebel groups or the Russians... But scary.

 

Just reinforces that as much as we don't want to intervene, don't we have a moral obligation at some point?

[papasmurfbell]

Yeah has that been done in history before?

[thundercleetz]

Just as an added twist to this discussion- anyone heard the news that Jews in east Ukraine are being asked to register with the govt? Somewhat unclear whether this is by rebel groups or the Russians... But scary.

 

Just reinforces that as much as we don't want to intervene, don't we have a moral obligation at some point?

Like you said, the Ukraine situation is more clear cut than the Syria situation. I heard that story too. If God forbid, the Jewish registration situation escalates to something more I'm certain there wouldn't be any problem gathering NATO forces collectively to prevent something terrible from happening. Information disseminates too easily nowadays. Until then, us acting alone is not in the best interests of anyone. Then again, native Africans in Darfur are still waiting for help. So if we do intervene in Syria or Ukraine, don't fool yourself by thinking we are doing this out of any moral obligation.

 

The moral obligation to act is at the point you have your facts straight enough to understand the full consequences of your actions. We don't have that in Ukraine now, and certainly not even close in Syria.

[dc.]

My only point is that it's a very gray line... How much bloodshed or violence deserves intervention? Regardless of picking sides, at a certain point I think you protect life regardless of good vs bad. But when? How many bodies? Does it matter? What kind of murder? Which people? (Like it or not our track record indicates we view some as more worthy of our help than others based on race, religion or maybe just cultural connection)

 

I agree that in the best of cases you need to know your enemy. And I will repeat that I am really not a pro intervention type guy - just arguing a counter point here more than anything else. But some cases are not about enemies as much as victims I think... and I don't know the answer there. I simply find it hard to see cities destroyed and people starving all over the world while I go out for lunch the time a week and worry about my internet connection speed and whether I have the energy for an O's game or not...

[oldcrow]

OBAMA is such a pussy wimp for not going into all these places and flexing our mighty power!!!!!

 

 

 

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Diplomacy doesn't not work

 

LOL

[thundercleetz]

My only point is that it's a very gray line... How much bloodshed or violence deserves intervention? Regardless of picking sides, at a certain point I think you protect life regardless of good vs bad. But when? How many bodies? Does it matter? What kind of murder? Which people? (Like it or not our track record indicates we view some as more worthy of our help than others based on race, religion or maybe just cultural connection)

 

I agree that in the best of cases you need to know your enemy. And I will repeat that I am really not a pro intervention type guy - just arguing a counter point here more than anything else. But some cases are not about enemies as much as victims I think... and I don't know the answer there. I simply find it hard to see cities destroyed and people starving all over the world while I go out for lunch the time a week and worry about my internet connection speed and whether I have the energy for an O's game or not...

I think we are on the same page here. I agree with what you're saying I just have two cautions:

 

1. I don't buy any sort of moral obligation argument our government gives us. We know very well who benefits when we go to war.

 

2. When intervening you run the risk of saving one group of people at the risk of another group. So all I am saying, we better he sure of what we are doing or we could end up causing more bloodshed. Who are we to play God and say who lives and who dies? I am not confident at all our government understands how these cultural and political dominos fall in the Middle East.

 

All things considered, with no outside variables, I agree with what you're saying.

[dc.]

Yeah we're on the same page. Just to clarify, I don't mean any obligation from the govt - especially not when they claim morality. I meant that as a personal matter. I feel a moral obligation in times of such destruction and violence, just as I would seeing a crime locally.

[thundercleetz]

http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014521105210702370

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/russia-china-bankdeal.html

 

What happens when we get into a pissing contest with our national interests by trying to stick our heads where they don't belong: we just pushed together two countries who weren't friendly with each other to begin with but now have a common interest.

 

This deal itself isn't anything to worry about, but it could be a precursor to something major if we don't get our act together. Whether that's five years down the line or twenty.

[dc.]

Men. Neither move concerns me. Russia and China have been closer for a while. Russia had been long looking to align with the east and has had little intention of ever playing ball with the USA. China is much the same.

 

The currency thing is a non starter too. What currency they use for interactions between themselves is insignificant. What matters (and still only somewhat) is what they hold as a legitimate reserve - which is still the dollar. China has discussed moving away from the dollar but simply for power reasons, not because they have a legitimate reason to. If they did, they wouldn't keep bugging US's debt... But they do.

[dc.]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriswright/2014/05/22/400-billion-gas-deal-shows-russia-looking-to-china-to-replace-western-money/

 

Alternative view from Forbes: shrug who cares?

 

Russia needs money and western nations aren't providing it; outflows from russia have been dramatic recently. China is offering up cash to become more important and get some currency boosts... Neither is truly new news

[thundercleetz]

DC, I sincerely hope you're right. And I wish I shared your optimism. In my original post I agreed with you stating this move itself is not a big. However, to ignore it as insignificant is irresponsible IMO. Yes, this will have no effect on our currency in the short or intermediate run for among the reasons stated: e.g. China has the most to lose if the dollar crashes (essentially a major unrealized capital loss). Also, as long as we're intervening with Arab governments to ensure the petro dollar stays intact the dollar isn't going anywhere.

 

Long-term though, I don't agree with you or the Forbes article. Yes, China doesn't want our currency to crash as they hold so much of it and it would obviously be devalued. However, what about in the event of a world currency crash? Your guess is as good as mine, but there could he sunk costs for everyone. I don't think China is buying up gold just for the heck of it either:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2013/07/22/china-working-quietly-to-buy-up-gold/

 

No, I'm not saying we'll go back to the gold standard. But we could very well have another 1971 where a new monetary system emerges with China as the leader.

 

I am also not sure I agree with your assessment on Russia being more friendly with China. Maybe more so than the USSR days, but I am certain events as of late and our diplomacy the past decade or so has pushed Russia more in that direction.

 

The question you have to ask: is it realistic that we could see the world economy crash at some point in the intermediate future? I think it is. People do dangerous things when they have nothing to lose and interests certainly change. Russia is especially dangerous because they have a leader who has no regard for the welfare of his country.

 

Once again, I hope you're right and this is nothing. If we take moves to stabilize our currency, this will be nothing. I just see too many interconnected pieces here to dismiss this as non-news. China has a bubble of their own, but if we continue down the path we are we'll burst before them.

[cravnravn]

China is not a player in the gold market yet, and dont think that the USA doesnt have their eye on them, i dont buy what the US has in gold tonnage either, we dont know, nor will we ever know.

 

The economy dictates the price of metals, prices are very low I dont recall silver being this low, I have a lot of silver have been collecting it for over 30 years, I got to greedy when Silver hit 50 an ounce, I kept reading that 100 an ounce was in the forseeable future..So if you believe the economy is in for another collapse, you should jump on the metals wagon..

[papasmurfbell]

China and Russia have a long history of not liking each other.

[dc.]

Global crash? Totally possible. More so than I would like to think our imagine.

 

But does the Russia/China relationship have anything to do with it or do I think their relationship would even affect the results of such a crash? No. Not even slightly.

 

Again, these are individual moves (yes big individuals) for reasons hardly related to US strength. More about creating "sway" in other economies, but it will fizzle.

 

In one sense even, it simply makes sense for closely tied economies to use common currency (of their own) to cover acct exchanges. And it hardly bothers US's value.

[papasmurfbell]

Both Russia and China are out for the same ring. They both can't have that empire. Their relationship will crumble at some point.

[thundercleetz]

Global crash? Totally possible. More so than I would like to think our imagine.

 

But does the Russia/China relationship have anything to do with it or do I think their relationship would even affect the results of such a crash? No. Not even slightly.

 

Again, these are individual moves (yes big individuals) for reasons hardly related to US strength. More about creating "sway" in other economies, but it will fizzle.

 

In one sense even, it simply makes sense for closely tied economies to use common currency (of their own) to cover acct exchanges. And it hardly bothers US's value.

We'll just agree to disagree here. Still don't agree with your assessment on China and Russia. I don't think the strengthening of Russia-China and deterioration of US-Russia since 2001 is a coincidence.

 

As said, I'm not disagreeing with what you say in your last paragraph. You're right these moves have no effect on the currency, and China doesn't want it to. At the moment. Irresponsible borrowing, intrusive foreign policy that is not well received by the rest of the world, and if there is a economy crash, then yes these move will absolutely matter.