Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    21 Jun '18 01:48
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    Donald Trump's far from being the only stereotypical Ugly American.
    If ugliness is a prerequisite, you fit right in.

    Duchess: If you were my husband, Donald, I'd feed you poison.
    Donald: If you were my wife, Duchess, I'd take it.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 01:53
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    If ugliness is a prerequisite, you fit right in.

    Duchess: If you were my husband, Donald, I'd feed you poison.
    Donald: If you were my wife, Duchess, I'd take it.
    The troll HandyAndy keeps showing that his main interest at RHP is running around
    hurling insults and lies at me.
  3. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 03:14
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    The objection has to lie in the specifics. If the coalition was not accused of war crimes then you wouldn't have a case. That Syria is alleged to have used chemical weapons but Saudi has not already provides a qualitative difference. The attack on Hodeidah seems to be in the category of reckless negligence (and probably militarily flawed, but that is ...[text shortened]... o non-combatants. This is different from the use of chemical weapons which are illegal weapons.
    In both civil wars in Syria and Yemen, one side evidently has overwhelming firepower,
    based upon air superiority.

    If Syria (Assad) and Russia could ruthlessly bomb the anti-Assad side
    without using chemical weapons, I doubt that the USA and UK would
    say that's acceptable. But when the Saudi-led forces bomb Yemen,
    the USA and UK apparently make no objection.
  4. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    21 Jun '18 03:45
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The troll HandyAndy keeps showing that his main interest at RHP is running around
    hurling insults and lies at me.
    Lies? This might be a good time to shine a light on your own shameful record of lying here at RHP.

    When I first posted the poison joke, you rushed to announce that I had stolen the classic exchange
    from Winston Churchill. You said you didn't need to look it up because you "knew" it was Churchill.

    But it wasn't. And you have no idea of the true source of this timeworn joke.

    You accused me of plagiarism and supported your assertion with a lie... an arrogant lie. Day after day
    you accuse others of lying... but you surpass them all.
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    21 Jun '18 03:48
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    In both civil wars in Syria and Yemen, one side evidently has overwhelming firepower,
    based upon air superiority.

    If Syria (Assad) and Russia could ruthlessly bomb the anti-Assad side
    without using chemical weapons, I doubt that the USA and UK would
    say that's acceptable. But when the Saudi-led forces bomb Yemen,
    the USA and UK apparently make no objection.
    Well the US refused to give the services of a minesweeper to support the assault on Hodeidah, and one of the articles on the Guardian website stated that both May and Johnson have made representations to the Sauds over the issue. Whether their strategy of near unconditional public support and diplomatic missions has any effect is debatable, but they've done more than nothing. It is not at all clear to me that Putin has made any effort to mitigate the impact of the Syrian government forces operations on Syrian non-combatants.

    > If Syria (Assad) and Russia could ruthlessly bomb the anti-Assad side
    without using chemical weapons...

    I am certain that the Syrian government can and is bombing the rebel forces with compliant munitions. Were they to restrict themselves to that US and UK criticisms would no doubt focus on the legitimacy of their targets.

    With the Saudi operations the criticisms seem to be that they are not doing enough to avoid collateral losses (anywhere near), rather than that they are deliberately targeting civilians.
  6. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 04:093 edits
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    Well the US refused to give the services of a minesweeper to support the assault on Hodeidah, and one of the articles on the Guardian website stated that both May and Johnson have made representations to the Sauds over the issue. Whether their strategy of near unconditional public support and diplomatic missions has any effect is debatable, but they've ...[text shortened]... d collateral losses (anywhere near), rather than that they are deliberately targeting civilians.
    My criticism of US and UK support of the Saudi-led side applies to
    the totality of the conflict, not just to the latest narrow window of
    events that DeepThought apparently prefers.

    When Assad perceives a military victory to be within reach, he has
    gone for it ruthlessly. Saudi Arabia would do the same in Yemen.

    It seems to me that the USA and UK prefer to condemn or condone
    the remorseless logic of war depending upon their perceived interests
    rather than any consistent moral principles.

    Given that both the USA and UK have been guilty of many war crimes,
    why should one believe they are incapable of hypocrisy toward
    the conduct of war? "Might is right, and white makes right", eh?

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-u-s-is-still-enabling-saudi-war-crimes-in-yemen/

    "The US is Still Enabling Saudi War Crimes in Yemen"
  7. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57085
    21 Jun '18 04:10
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I would suggest that Americans and Britons become less smug in presuming that the
    USA or UK must be morally superior to countries that the USA and UK like to criticize.
    Fat chance of that happening.

    Anything Saudi Arabia supports is generally evil. And anything the US (and Britain generally as well) does in the Middle-East has to do with oil and / or stupidity covered in hypocrisy and evil.
  8. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 04:25
    Originally posted by @shavixmir
    Fat chance of that happening.

    Anything Saudi Arabia supports is generally evil. And anything the US (and Britain generally as well) does in the Middle-East has to do with oil and / or stupidity covered in hypocrisy and evil.
    I believe that Saudi Arabia's record has been worse than Iran's.
    Broadly speaking, the Shia tend be oppressed by the Sunni more
    often than the other way around. But the USA regards Saudi Arabia
    as its favorite Arab client state and Iran as its eternal enemy.

    DeepThought seems to be trying for a narrow technical argument
    that would deny or excuse UK or US hypocrisy toward Yemen.
  9. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    21 Jun '18 04:251 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    My criticism of US and UK support of the Saudi-led side applies to
    the totality of the conflict, not just to the latest narrow window of
    events that DeepThought apparently prefers.

    When Assad perceives a military victory to be within reach, he has
    gone for it ruthlessly. Saudi Arabia would do the same in Yemen.

    It seems to me that the USA and UK ...[text shortened]... till-enabling-saudi-war-crimes-in-yemen/

    "The US is Still Enabling Saudi War Crimes in Yemen"
    The totality of the conflict? In your second paragraph you seem to be criticizing the Saudis for acts they have not yet committed. If you want to mention specifics from the past do so, but I'm not going to feel the need to comment on the UK's support of an ally for things they haven't done yet.

    You are yet to demonstrate that there is no qualitative difference between what Saudi is accused of and what the Syrian regime is accused of.
  10. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 04:31
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    The totality of the conflict? In your second paragraph you seem to be criticizing the Saudis for acts they have not yet committed. If you want to mention specifics from the past do so, but I'm not going to feel the need to defend the UK's support of an ally for things they haven't done yet.
    That's an absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
    Obviously, I refer to the totality of PAST actions, not just the very
    recent Saudi actions toward capturing a vital seaport.

    At least DeeoThought now seems to have revealed his motive as
    defending UK, if not also US, government policy toward Yemen.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    21 Jun '18 04:411 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    That's an absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
    Obviously, I refer to the totality of PAST actions, not just the very
    recent Saudi actions toward capturing a vital seaport.

    At least DeeoThought now seems to have revealed his motive as
    defending UK, if not also US, government policy toward Yemen.
    I wasn't happy with my post and edited it, I dropped the word defend and replaced it with "comment on" and added a paragraph. Please deal with the edited version. You haven't dealt with the category error I've pointed out. Saudi are not accused of using illegal weapons.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    21 Jun '18 05:11
    Originally posted by @deepthought
    I wasn't happy with my post and edited it, I dropped the word defend and replaced it with "comment on" and added a paragraph. Please deal with the edited version. You haven't dealt with the category error I've pointed out. Saudi are not accused of using illegal weapons.
    I would criticize US and UK support of Saudi Arabia in Yemen even
    if there were no war in Syria. My position does not depend upon
    supporting everything that Assad or Russia do in the Syrian civil war.

    Earlier DeepThought apparently tried for a narrow technical argument
    to excuse US war crimes in the Philippines (early 1900s).
    Now DeepThought apparently wants to try for the same thing in Yemen.

    By the way, the USA and UK condoned Iraq's lavish use of chemical
    weapons against Iran, so I don't take professed outrage over
    chemical warfare as a very sincere expression of moral principle.
  13. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    282490
    21 Jun '18 05:16
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    The UN has described the situation in Yemen as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
    Western powers (USA, UK , France) strongly support the Saudi-led forces
    that are primarily responsible for this humanitarian crisis.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/17/the-guardian-view-on-yemen-our-complicity-lies-bare

    "The Guardian view ...[text shortened]... iously warned
    that an attack on Hodeidah could “take peace off the table in a single stroke” "
    So. Put on your pussy boots on and grab your whatever you have and go fight for them. Troll
  14. SubscriberTom Wolsey
    Aficionado of Prawns
    Texas
    Joined
    30 Apr '17
    Moves
    3849
    21 Jun '18 05:19
    Originally posted by @kquinn909
    So. Put on your pussy boots on and grab your whatever you have and go fight for them. Troll
    Please don't encourage Duchess to take up arms. God help us all.
  15. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80175
    21 Jun '18 16:30
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    I would criticize US and UK support of Saudi Arabia in Yemen even
    if there were no war in Syria. My position does not depend upon
    supporting everything that Assad or Russia do in the Syrian civil war.

    Earlier DeepThought apparently tried for a narrow technical argument
    to excuse US war crimes in the Philippines (early 1900s).
    Now DeepThought appar ...[text shortened]... take professed outrage over
    chemical warfare as a very sincere expression of moral principle.
    War crimes are a technical matter. You brought up the war in Syria, not I. Since what is at issue is US and UK hypocrisy the comparison is relevant. Saudi has not been accused of the use of chemical weapons. They have been accused of a persistent failure of distinction in their targeting. If you want to show that Saudi is no different to Syria in that regard you can probably construct a case, but complaining that I won't accept vague generalities won't get you very far.
Back to Top