Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [evol-psych] Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize

Expand Messages
  • hibbsa
    what would you like to think about the other question, which is what you and others would be willing to see and hear should the forces against Assad use
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 12, 2013
      what would you like to think about the other question, which is what you and others would be willing to see and hear should the forces against Assad use chemical weapons on a regular basis.

      For example, this most recent atrocity wasn't the first chemical attack. There were a couple of earlier attacks, and wasn't the outcome of the investigations into those, that it was most likely the opposition forces?

      What would you like to think about that?

      --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:
      >
      > It's a pertinent question.
      >
      > I would like to believe that if Assad were to start using chemical weapons
      > on a regular basis even the Russians, Chinese and Iranians would be
      > sufficiently revolted to abandon him, but perhaps Im being naive.
      >
      > I think if Assad were to follow this no hold bared course he would also
      > legitimise the destruction of his airforce and attempts to assassinate him
      > by drone strikes.
      >
      > Wade
      >
      >
      >
      > On 12 September 2013 10:20, Don Zimmerman <dwzimm@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@>
      > > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Certainly a shrewd peace of diplomatic action but before we start
      > > > nominating Putin for the peace prize lets not forget heis the one who has
      > > > supplied all those MiGs and other armaments that Assad has been using to
      > > > kill 100,000 of his own people and caused 2m people (10% of his
      > > population
      > > > ) to leave their country and live in refugee camps.
      > >
      > > DWZ:
      > > I have not heard Obama or anyone else answer the following question.
      > > Suppose after a limited military strike by the USA, the Assad regime once
      > > again uses chemical weapons. What happens then? Will a stronger military
      > > strike be needed to get the message across? And could the same thing keep
      > > on happening? Perhaps that scenario is unlikely. But Obama stated that
      > > military involvement will be strictly limited. He did not say that military
      > > involvement "probably" or "most likely" will be limited.
      > >
      > > Best regards,
      > >
      > > Don Zimmerman
      > > Vancouver, BC, Canada
      > > dwzimm@...
      > > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • hibbsa
      ... You haven t heard the question answered, but have you heard it asked? Basically the question is a central theme to groups that want to draw America into a
      Message 2 of 8 , Sep 12, 2013
        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "Don Zimmerman" <dwzimm@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Certainly a shrewd peace of diplomatic action but before we start
        > > nominating Putin for the peace prize lets not forget heis the one who has
        > > supplied all those MiGs and other armaments that Assad has been using to
        > > kill 100,000 of his own people and caused 2m people (10% of his population
        > > ) to leave their country and live in refugee camps.
        >
        >
        > DWZ:
        > I have not heard Obama or anyone else answer the following question. Suppose after a limited military strike by the USA, the Assad regime once again uses chemical weapons. What happens then? Will a stronger military strike be needed to get the message across? And could the same thing keep on happening? Perhaps that scenario is unlikely. But Obama stated that military involvement will be strictly limited. He did not say that military involvement "probably" or "most likely" will be limited.
        >
        > Best regards,
        >
        > Don Zimmerman
        > Vancouver, BC, Canada
        > dwzimm@...
        > http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        >

        You haven't heard the question answered, but have you heard it asked?

        Basically the question is a central theme to groups that want to draw America into a war with Iran despite the fact Americans overwhelmingly do not want to do it.

        Obama is immensely resistant, and so the strategy has been narrowed down to the goal of wedging him into making statements about conditions he would go to war on.

        Perhaps coincidence but the chemical attacks have all materialized since he was wedged into explicitly making chemical weapons a redline.

        Assuming you don't personally read any of that, and you aren't personally interested in getting American into another war, the reason I mention all that, is because it is the answer to your question, why he is using language without ambiguity.

        The second explanation, which is also true, is that it is never sensible to draw lines, for all the reasons above and such lines are totally unnecessary. He is responding to something that has happened and he is not being drawn on how he might respond in the future.

        What if China sank a US naval ship for no reason? That could be a reason to go to war. Perhaps Obama should make a statement to the effect "if china ever sink a naval ship, that'll be a red line for war".

        In fact there are an infinite such statements Obama might make.
      • Don Zimmerman
        ... DWZ: That seems to me like a reasonable prediction. But nobody is 100% sure about the outcome of US military action. When even the US generals are raising
        Message 3 of 8 , Sep 12, 2013
          --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Wade <wmaillist@...> wrote:

          > It's a pertinent question.
          >
          > I would like to believe that if Assad were to start using chemical weapons
          > on a regular basis even the Russians, Chinese and Iranians would be
          > sufficiently revolted to abandon him, but perhaps Im being naive.
          >
          > I think if Assad were to follow this no hold bared course he would also
          > legitimise the destruction of his airforce and attempts to assassinate him
          > by drone strikes.


          DWZ:
          That seems to me like a reasonable prediction. But nobody is 100% sure about the outcome of US military action. When even the US generals are raising doubts about the wisdom of a military strike, there is at least some nonzero probability of things going very wrong.

          Best regards,

          Don Zimmerman
          Vancouver, BC, Canada
          dwzimm@...
          http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
        • Don Zimmerman
          ... DWZ: On the evening news a few days back, it was asked by a US general. But it was not answered then, and I have not heard it answered since. It seems to
          Message 4 of 8 , Sep 12, 2013
            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, "hibbsa" <hibbsa@...> wrote:

            > You haven't heard the question answered, but have you heard it asked?
            >
            > Basically the question is a central theme to groups that want to draw America into a war with Iran despite the fact Americans overwhelmingly do not want to do it.


            DWZ:
            On the evening news a few days back, it was asked by a US general. But it was not answered then, and I have not heard it answered since. It seems to me to be a big assumption that "limited" strikes will make Assad back down and stop whatever he has been doing with chemical weapons (if truly it is he and not the opposition using them).

            Best regards,

            Don Zimmerman
            Vancouver, BC, Canada
            dwzimm@...
            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.