Syria

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Syria

#1 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:20 am

Interesting...


User avatar
kv
Posts: 8291
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: South Bay, SoCal

Re: Syria

#2 Post by kv » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:33 am

if we are the world police...( like it or not we are) then we gotta go do something

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6941
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#3 Post by Hype » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:37 am

Russia and China no like. Maybe Syria is the new Serbia?


User avatar
LJF
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#4 Post by LJF » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:02 am

kv wrote:if we are the world police...( like it or not we are) then we gotta go do something

not sure why we need to get involved and if we are why did we wait? Why do anything if regime change isn't the goal? I think stay out of it.


White House: We're not seeking 'regime change' as goal in Syria
By Justin Sink - 08/27/13 01:32 PM ET

The White House said Tuesday that President Obama is not seeking "regime change" in Syria from any military strikes launched in response to President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.

"The options we are considering are not about regime change," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. "That is not what we are contemplating here."

The White House spokesman said that the administration was instead simply weighing a reaction to the violation of "an international standard" barring the use of chemical weapons.

"It is not our policy to respond to this transgression with regime change," he said.

The comments by Carney came as the White House attempts to decouple the response to last week's chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs from broader support for the rebel forces challenging Assad in Syria.

While the United States has repeatedly said that Assad would and must fall from power, the Obama administration has also said that transition needs to come internally. Carney reiterated on Tuesday that there was "no military solution to the conflict in Syria," giving credence to reports that a U.S. military response would be limited in scope.

"We are very engaged in the process of pursuing a political resolution to this conflict," Carney said. "We have stated it for a long time, that there is no military solution available here, that the way to bring about a better future in Syria is through negotiation and a political resolution."

Still, Carney said that "there must be a response" to the rocket attack in the suburbs of Damascus last week. Rebel groups on the ground have estimated that more than 1,000 Syrians died in the chemical weapon attack.

Earlier Tuesday, NBC News reported that the U.S. was preparing three days of bombing attacks on Syrian targets to begin as early as Wednesday.

Administration officials told the network the strikes would be limited in scope and aimed at sending a message to Assad in hopes of deterring a future chemical weapons attack.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told the BBC that the military was "ready to go" if orders came from Obama to begin the strikes.

“We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” said Hagel.

But at the White House, Carney insisted that no decision had yet been made.

"The president continues to work with his national security team reviewing the options available to him," Carney said. "That process continues."

The White House spokesman also said that the public can expect "this week" a declassified report laying out the U.S. intelligence determining that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack.

"There is also very little doubt and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons," Carney said.

On Monday, CBS News reported that Obama had personally ordered the creation and release of the report during a meeting with his national security team over the weekend.

The White House also looked to partially address concerns voiced by some who oppose military intervention who have pointed to a 2007 Boston Globe interview in which Obama said the "president does not have the power, under the Constitution, to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Carney said Tuesday that Syria's use of chemical weapons did pose an actual threat to the U.S.

"I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States' national security," Carney said.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6941
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#5 Post by Hype » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:05 am

That presumes that the United States wasn't at least partially involved in/behind the anti-Assad stuff to begin with, which they probably were...

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7304
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#6 Post by Larry B. » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:22 am

Nothing new under the sun.

The US has economic interests, and Syria is the next in line. It's been clear and planned that way for no less than 3 years. It has nothing to do with democracy or internal turmoil. Whatever desesabilization is happening there, the US is behind it. It's textbook.

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: Syria

#7 Post by Jasper » Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:58 am

This has got to be one of the most unpopular ideas ever. I can't find anyone who buys this nonsense and wants to act. We're hurtling helplessly towards an (apparently) inevitable action and it's a sickening feeling with which many of us are painfully familiar.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#8 Post by Bandit72 » Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:36 pm

Yep, it stinks. Do you think the 'west' can ever be not at war at any given time? Syria could turn into a global nightmare. However I've just seen that UK action has not been approved. Not sure what to believe anymore.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6941
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#9 Post by Hype » Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:27 pm

Well... uh... using chemical weapons is really bad... like... aside from the fact that Assad has killed tens of thousands of people already... chemical weapons are "banned", so if the UN, the Geneva Conventions and other organizations mean anything at all, it's probably a good idea for them to do things when nations engage in shit they've said no nation should do... Of course, this particular action is not obviously the best way of doing that.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#10 Post by LJF » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:46 pm

Let the UN sanction something and not the US. I don't think this a good idea for the US, let someone police the world. We catch shit if we get involved we catch shit if we don't. Larry you're right this is all the US's fault.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 6941
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Syria

#11 Post by Hype » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:52 pm

LJF wrote:Let the UN sanction something and not the US. I don't think this a good idea for the US, let someone police the world. We catch shit if we get involved we catch shit if we don't. Larry you're right this is all the US's fault.
Well, https://www.gov.uk/sanctions-on-syria

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-cont ... _Sheet.pdf

There's nothing wrong with individual states doing this kind of stuff...

It's not really a "world police" issue in this case... it's more of a ... world leadership... issue... The five permanent UN Sec. Council members are really the ones the world looks to to solve major issues like chemical weapons use and so forth... And obviously Russia and China are not supporting the US, UK, France military intervention... so since the three "Western" allies are more or less in agreement (because of... data?... probably knowledge of covert ops stuff too?)... it makes sense to agree to do something independent of the UN.

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: Syria

#12 Post by Jasper » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:35 pm

Oil and Israel. Always high among the motives. We don't know if these things even happened, or if they did that they're not a false flag by the rebels and/or other entities. Both sides have filthy hands. I think the rebels are committing their share of atrocities. At least one side is secular-leaning. Al-Qaeda is tied up with these rebels and loads of foreign Islamist professional soldier scum.

We know what happens when we destabilize these countries. We know that when we take down a strongman we end up with more chaos, more suffering, and more death. We end up babysitting the mess and meddling with the country for years, or indefinitely, and on our dime and with our blood. We know about the "we'll be in and out" and "we're not nation-building or regime-changing" nonsense.

And Hype, you enjoy disparaging the United States, but you seem to be calling for blood and hoping the U.S. will be an attack dog for what seems to be your interests. If it matters so much to you, rally the government in your strong, free, capable, progressive nation, and have them build a coalition, or what have you, and take care of it yourselves without us. Enjoy reaping the benefits. :wave:

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#13 Post by LJF » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:11 pm

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
LJF wrote:Let the UN sanction something and not the US. I don't think this a good idea for the US, let someone police the world. We catch shit if we get involved we catch shit if we don't. Larry you're right this is all the US's fault.
Well, https://www.gov.uk/sanctions-on-syria

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-cont ... _Sheet.pdf

There's nothing wrong with individual states doing this kind of stuff...

It's not really a "world police" issue in this case... it's more of a ... world leadership... issue... The five permanent UN Sec. Council members are really the ones the world looks to to solve major issues like chemical weapons use and so forth... And obviously Russia and China are not supporting the US, UK, France military intervention... so since the three "Western" allies are more or less in agreement (because of... data?... probably knowledge of covert ops stuff too?)... it makes sense to agree to do something independent of the UN.

People piss all over the US for playing the world leader, but when it's in their countries or their personal interest they want the US to take that role. If things go badly it's on the US and here come the cries of why can't the US stop getting into other people's business. What is the end game? The Obama administration has already said it's not about regime change, but today they said this current regime is behind the chemicals attacks. So what go in drop some bombs and what next? Who pays the tab for this little exercise?

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5607
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Syria

#14 Post by Pandemonium » Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:53 am

Much of what is going on in Syria is a war by proxy among a number of Middle eastern countries (and more indirectly, China, Russia and The West) supporting either the rebels or the government. Our involvement of course is predicated on further weakening Iran's position, supporting (and keeping a leash on) Israel and of course keeping the Suez canal free and safe for oil exports. Look at a map of the region and take in either countries that are our buddies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt.. er, depending on who's in charge there, atm) or countries we have a solid military presence in like Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran looks more and more like a little lily pad in an ever-growing lake.

It's so much bullshit though. Yeah, Assad (or someone) gassed a lot of people but when you look at the mass torture and murder going on even in neighboring countries in the Middle East much less other parts of the world that we're turning a blind eye to, the altruistic reasons Obama's giving about diving into this ("they crossed a line") is just bald faced hucksterism that poorly masks what our real goals are. The thinking seems to be "if we keep the region just destabilized enough that they stay focused on fighting each other rather than us but we can still mine their natural resources than it's cool."

I would bet Syria is probably going to play out much like Libya did as far as Western involvement/intervention And the magnitude of it is concerned. We're going to bomb the fuck out of some key military and government targets for a couple weeks, prevent the government from using their air force, heavy artillery and of course, chemical weapons, pretty much evening the odds for the rebels vs. Assad. Assad will eventually (and probably in typically bloody fashion) be put down by the rebels leaving the country an anarchic mess for the foreseeable future.

Then comes Egypt if that country can't get it's shit together.

User avatar
Bandit72
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:04 am
Location: Birmingham, England

Re: Syria

#15 Post by Bandit72 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 2:05 am

Makes me laugh when Cameron says the killing of innocent people needs to be stopped let's have me some miltary action.

Erm, David. Robert Mugabe's been doing it for fucking years AND has just been re-elected! Obviously we couldn't give a flying fuck about Zimbabwe.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7304
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#16 Post by Larry B. » Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:06 am

Jasper wrote:Oil and Israel. Always high among the motives. We don't know if these things even happened, or if they did that they're not a false flag by the rebels and/or other entities. Both sides have filthy hands. I think the rebels are committing their share of atrocities. At least one side is secular-leaning. Al-Qaeda is tied up with these rebels and loads of foreign Islamist professional soldier scum.
I'm pretty sure the US intelligence is better linked to the rebels than Al-Qaeda. But yeah, all of this is about oil and Israel. I insist, if you search for videos or blogs or some news articles from 2 or 3 years ago, they mention how Syria is the next strategic target. Said and done.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#17 Post by LJF » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:53 am

Larry B. wrote:
Jasper wrote:Oil and Israel. Always high among the motives. We don't know if these things even happened, or if they did that they're not a false flag by the rebels and/or other entities. Both sides have filthy hands. I think the rebels are committing their share of atrocities. At least one side is secular-leaning. Al-Qaeda is tied up with these rebels and loads of foreign Islamist professional soldier scum.
I'm pretty sure the US intelligence is better linked to the rebels than Al-Qaeda. But yeah, all of this is about oil and Israel. I insist, if you search for videos or blogs or some news articles from 2 or 3 years ago, they mention how Syria is the next strategic target. Said and done.

Please do post these videos or blogs.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7304
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#18 Post by Larry B. » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:24 am

LJF wrote:
Larry B. wrote:
Jasper wrote:Oil and Israel. Always high among the motives. We don't know if these things even happened, or if they did that they're not a false flag by the rebels and/or other entities. Both sides have filthy hands. I think the rebels are committing their share of atrocities. At least one side is secular-leaning. Al-Qaeda is tied up with these rebels and loads of foreign Islamist professional soldier scum.
I'm pretty sure the US intelligence is better linked to the rebels than Al-Qaeda. But yeah, all of this is about oil and Israel. I insist, if you search for videos or blogs or some news articles from 2 or 3 years ago, they mention how Syria is the next strategic target. Said and done.

Please do post these videos or blogs.
OK, I lied.

Happy?

They're out, I have no interest in looking for them again because even back then it wasn't a surprise. If you're interested, try this: www.google.com

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: Syria

#19 Post by LJF » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:28 am

Larry B. wrote:
LJF wrote:
Larry B. wrote:
Jasper wrote:Oil and Israel. Always high among the motives. We don't know if these things even happened, or if they did that they're not a false flag by the rebels and/or other entities. Both sides have filthy hands. I think the rebels are committing their share of atrocities. At least one side is secular-leaning. Al-Qaeda is tied up with these rebels and loads of foreign Islamist professional soldier scum.
I'm pretty sure the US intelligence is better linked to the rebels than Al-Qaeda. But yeah, all of this is about oil and Israel. I insist, if you search for videos or blogs or some news articles from 2 or 3 years ago, they mention how Syria is the next strategic target. Said and done.

Please do post these videos or blogs.
OK, I lied.

Happy?

They're out, I have no interest in looking for them again because even back then it wasn't a surprise. If you're interested, try this: http://www.google.com

Why yes I'm happy, almost all the time, thanks for asking. And you? Thought it would be the nice thing to do, to ask you.

Your disdain for the US is very clear so I thought maybe you had it right there ready to go, with all of your other "Evil Empire" videos, blogs, and articles.

What is this google thing you mention?

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7304
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Syria

#20 Post by Larry B. » Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:00 am

Well, I don't think any reasonable human being could dispute the empire-ish attempts of the US. Same goes for the UK, although with a different intensity. And the Vatican, as well. Out of those three, the Vatican is the one I hate the most, the US comes in second place and I'm quite fond of the UK, in spite of some recent mistakes (i.e., associating with the US.) And what I hate about them isn't the people (except in the Vatican; I do hate their people,) it's their empireness.

It's not a conspiracy theory. The thing I'm telling you about Syria wasn't published in www.nutjobsunited.com, it appeared in "serious" channels and news outlets as the US started "surrounding" Syria with military bases in the surrounding countries (all of which was pure coincidence, I'm sure). Then the news sort of died out, and now they're back on. So, regardless of my disliking the US' campaign in the Middle East, the truth is one: the intervention in Syria began a while ago, just as one stage of the long term plan they have for the area.

Post Reply