On September 01 2013 09:05 sekritzzz wrote: Without a doubt congress is going to reject it and that's exactly what Obama wants. Obama got stuck hard in between a rock and a hard place when te uk rejected intervention. He needs the political support especially because people at home don't want to intervene. To think Obama cares about the congress or how it's supposed to keep him in check is absurd.
Why didn't he call congress in from the start? Why after the British rejected intervention. Secondly why didn't he call them in for libya if it was really about principles.
As much as I disliked bush at least he wasn't a conniving 2-faced faced snake. Obama is seriously one of the worst US presidents.
Then what happens if Obama backs off from any kind of military strike and this emboldens Assad/rebels (whomever is responsible for chemical attack although I personally suspect the latter), to use chemical weapons again on Syrian populace (or worse, Israel), knowing that Obama is too afraid to stop them?
As sad of a state as at it is but this is politics. To put it bluntly Obama doesn't really care about it being a precedent just like bush didn't really want to bring "democracy" to Iraq. They use it as a justification to have a moral reason so the people back it up when in reality most of their interventions have been in self-Interest.
The report came out 6 days ago how the USA helped Saddam use CHemical weapons on the Iranians. Kind of how the afghan population used to be freedom fighters but today they are all terrorists because their invader changed. /politics
Ah, you've caught on to the millenia old tradition of politicians and other powerful figures often saying one thing to justify brutal action in order to mask darker interests that the public would not agree with. I applaud you.
I'm pretty sure it was decided years ago that Bush and Co. didn't actually care about "democracy" in Iraq. That wasn't even one of the original stated goals anyways. It was the imaginary WMDs/nukes. The democracy thing came into play when we realized the US people weren't going to buy myths anymore and Bush and Co. needed a reason to sell to the US people to justify being in Iraq. Speaking of which, the country's regime (which we pretty much hand-picked) is terribly authoritarian and brutal, during peacetime at that.. Democracy right?
We gave chemical weapons to both sides in Iran-Iraq War, because it was in our interest for the war to drag on and wear down both countries. We also gave tons of other weapons to Iran, presumably to make up for Iraqi strategic superiority. Fortunately for the US, Khomeini was the most radical Islamist and the most stubborn man of the modern era, and would not accept peace at all until he was defeated (which he "accepted like a cup of poison"), so the war dragged on for 8 years instead of 2-3.
Kind of how the afghan population used to be freedom fighters but today they are all terrorists because their invader changed
Hehe. Since when are terrorists and Islamic extremists freedom fighters? Not only was the significant Soviet aid and development before the war were one of the few things to ever improve Afghanistan and move it forward in known history, but the Afghan govt. begged them to come in to deal with feral Islamists, which was followed by Soviet 'invasion'. Another question: How do you think the US public would react if it said it was supporting Islamists and terrorists instead of "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan during the 80s? Probably not well. Wording and twisting are very important in politics.
Looks like Judicator has managed to come up with yet another "everybody knows" fact-free post...
1. Anyone who has actually read anything about the inside workings of the George W. Bush White House knows that "Bush and Co." did care about "democracy" in Iraq. In his very first speech in 2002 regarding Iraq Bush listed 3 reasons: WMD, terrorism, and democracy. Not one was given precedence over the others. If the "democracy thing" came "later," then by "later" you must mean "30 seconds later." I understand that it is comforting to shape history to fit what you already believe, but facts are facts, even with your barely passing acquaintance with them. 2. Ah yes, it's our fault that authoritarianism has an 8,000 year history in that country and that region in general, so any government there is naturally going to try to be that way. The Maliki government kept a lid on its authoritarian tendencies while we had tens of thousands of soldiers there and took the lid off after we left, because they told us to leave, because if we had stayed people like you would have concocted some more bullshit theories about what "everybody knows" and "what everybody decided" (sorry, the world isn't Wikipedia, consensus =!= truth) and such. We should have just given a middle finger to their government, overthrew it, and kept doing so until they came up with a good government. I'm sure it would have happened before 2040. 3. Chemical weapons were never given to Iran by the US in the Iran-Iraq War, this is simply false bullshit. You can find lists of what country provided what all over the internet. Surprise surprise, the number one supplier to Saddam Hussein was the Soviet Union. This includes chemical and biological weapons precursor materials. Go read the Congressional reports post-Gulf War that deplored US Commerce Department licenses being issued for sales of biological agents and chemicals to Saddam during the war, you'll see clear evidence that George H.W. Bush was forcing the Commerce Department to allow such sales (oh wait no you won't because the evidence doesn't exist). And after Saddam started regularly using chemical gasses on the battlefield, there was an effort to end such sales, and several companies that got in trouble for continuing them (other companies slipped under the radar, or, more palatable to you no doubt, were allowed to slip under the radar). Yet again we see the "Come on, it must be true!" attitude substituted for actual facts. As the number two man in the operation said:
"We didn't want either side to have the advantage. We just wanted them to kick the shit out of each other".
Sounds good to me, in fact from what you say there it even sounds good to you!
The Afghan government that begged the Soviets to come in was so popular that it did not exist before the KGB created it. It was also so popular that it would have been dismembered and obliterated if the Red Army had not invaded in 1979. Most of the muhajideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s were Afghans or Pakistanis from just across the border who had family / clan ties to Afghanistan. It is a total joke (and totally false) to say that the Soviets gave significant aid to Afghanistan or helped develop it in any meaningful way considering Moscow spent 10 years blowing up most of what it had built there previously. Both the United States and the USSR gave significant aid to Afghanistan from the early 1960s to the late 1970s to try to influence the King to throw his weight behind either Washington or Moscow. There was a communist coup in 1978 that was immediately met with resistance from the muhajideen, then another coup (communist against communist coup) with the leader of THAT coup being assassinated by the spetznaz at the end of 1979. Almost immediately thereafter the Red Army invaded. Just where and when did this great Soviet contribution to Afghanistan take place, other than alongside American contributions pre-1978? The Afghan government that "begged" the Soviets to save them from the "feral muhajideen" was a Soviet puppet government just a year old that had already had a schism that required the Red Army to resolve. At no point was there ever a communist government in Afghanistan that did jack shit to develop the country or bring it forward. The communists overthrew the old non-communist government (this old non-communist government being the one that had actually did some small development of the country using US and Russian money) and started their usual communist bullshit which surprise surprise pissed off Muslims as atheism and Islam are not exactly friendly. The Muslims started fighting back, the communists split against themselves, Moscow stepped in to crush the country under its red boot to stop the shenanigans more of its own people than of the muhajideen. Most muhajideen were locals fighting for their homes and their country, not international jihadi all-stars. There really weren't too many international jihadi all-stars at that point in time, the first generation of the 60s and 70s had mostly been killed off or put in jail or had gone back to exclusively fighting Israel. You have to look at the period after the Soviet withdrawal to see the nationalist muhajideen start to decline and the internationalist jihadis gain prominence in Afghanistan.
But whatever, Judicator knows how it is and has figured it out... what actually happened, the details, all of that be damned.
First, before you go crazy, DEB, note I don't disagree with you on most points in this upcoming post. In particular, I am much more against Islamism than you are. And while I may not like many of the forces past and present that are fighting against Islamism, I'd certainly prefer that to having Islamic extremists who have nothing on their agenda but hatred and murder. Do not interpret my support against Islamism as being support for the group fighting them since given group always has other interests as well (eg. Assad, USSR, etc.).
On September 02 2013 06:18 Ghanburighan wrote: Kudos, DEB, for writing all of that up. But JH is just a troll, don't feed him.
He didn't write much of value. All he said of value was that the Afghan govt. was a puppet regime. That's not something I denied or stated otherwise. Some things were long-winded explanations of things, or excuses for others.
As for your cheap shot right there, are you still mad about that comment a few pages back proving you know nothing of US politics? lol. I do admit, it must have hurt you pretty bad when I referred to Estonia as a Russian satellite. My apologies for hurting your feelings. I know how you all feel about that. Just a few days ago, one of my friends mistook an Indian acquaintance (a Muslim of Punjabi heritage) for being Pakistani, and the dude came very close to going apeshit. I hear there's something similar with people in the Baltic states in regards to Russia. lol
Anyways, DEB, at least the nation of Afghanistan was making some progress with that puppet regime. Development and secularism were taking root, which is a very rare thing in western Asia nowadays. Our puppet regime led by Karzai isn't doing shit, that's for sure. This isn't a matter of "US did something good" or "Soviet Union did something good", it's just what happened. The circumstances in play did not allow us to achieve anything significant in regards to Afghanistan making progrses, and this is why Afghanistan is still in a very fucked up situation.
Anyways, the imaginary terrorism links and WMDs were the main reasons. Whether or not "democracy" was on the agenda is irrelevant. You can't sell a war to your people without having them feel that they're in danger or that good will come out of it. Just like the Crusades! "God wills it! To save the Holy Land from the evil infidels! We must slay them before the Islamic scourge takes over Europe!" If I recall correctly, back in 2003, we were saying the Iraqis were going to use said WMDs against us. Wtf? XD Not only did they not have said weapons, or plans to use these weapons, they didn't have the means to deliver them half way around the world. Regardless, logic and rationality aren't known to be the strong points of the general society, so, that got the people scared, so this war needed to happen.
So your excuse for the US failing in Iraq was that Mesopotamia had authoritarianism when the only form of rulership in the world before a few centuries ago was authoritarianism. This is a funny excuse for it. Lol xD
Whether or not we actually wanted to set up democracy is besides the point though. Having gone in and removed a government that didn't want to play ball was a big objective in itself, then came the task of setting up a regime, democratic or not, and as we've done countless times in the past, that would fall in line. This is something we've wanted in Iraq for over half a century. The problem is, even that failed. The Iranian government has significantly more influence over Iraq than we could ever hope to have, influence that didn't exist before, except over Shi'a extremists within the country.
You ignore the important fact that Maliki was already pretty oppressive while we were still there. Like really bad. The fact you imply otherwise is silly. He didn't have a "lid" on things. It wasn't like he was George Washington while the US was there then Hitler when we left. He got worse by the time we left, but he was already crazy dictator status before that point.
When did the Soviets give chemical weapons to Iraq? We gave it to the Iraqis with our blessings and encouragement. You seem to imply it's bad that the Soviets (and French) were giving armaments and vehicles and weapons to Iraq. Well, we weren't giving it to them, so where were they going to get them from? Still, I never heard anything about the Soviets or anyone but the US giving them chemical weapons.
As for Iran, that's my mistake, the Iranians did use chemical weapons, but they made them, they didn't come from the US. Conflicting information I've read in the past, unfortunately. But the Iranians DID have chemical weapons. I dare you to say that's false. + Show Spoiler +
In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was "capable of manufacturing chemical weapons … [and would] consider using them." In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran's policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing "sophisticated offensive chemical weapons." http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/history-irans-chemical-weapon-related-efforts
Hey, the Iranians have WMDs, for real. Why not invade them?
Sounds good to me, in fact from what you say there it even sounds good to you
Not necessarily. It prolonged the war significantly. I'm not so twisted to support destruction and death as you do. What I do like though is that a whole national Islamic uprising within the Mideast was stopped in its tracks. However, its influence lived, as we can clearly see in Iraq, Lebanon, etc.
I think though from the Iraqi side though that Hussein is the biggest idiot in the past century. He tried to play Mr. Independent even before he became president (but was pretty much the guy running the government) and because of that no country has been wrecked like Iraq in the past 20 years. Had he played ball, we wouldn't have touched him, and the country would prove to be our most valuable ally in the fight against the growing Islamism. Not to mention the country would be significantly more developed and prosperous. Rather, Iraq is run by a pseudo-Islamist dictator who has surprise buttsecks with Ayatollah Khamenei and its economy, society, infrastructure, etc. is in terrible, terrible shape. Relatively, it was significantly better. And like Hussein, Maliki doesn't want to play ball when the country needs help the most it's ever needed it.
You'd think the rebels in Syria would be pre-occupied fighting the military. Instead, some of them devote some of their time to killing Christians because their view of Islam says all Christians (and any other non-Muslims) should die. Please don't tell me you support these people.
But no, the only thing I do like from the US playing both sides in the Iran-Iraq War was the fact that regardless of it, Khomeini failed. So in a sense, it does sound good to me. It didn't stop, but it did delay the massive Islamic outbreak we're been having nowadays.
Now when are we going to war against Iran? Did our military get soft or something?
On September 01 2013 20:53 Rosie wrote: Americans can not come up with new excuses to start their their military expansion. they still use prepositions 20-30 years old. discussion is pointless, unnecessarily is just watching as the world Zionism enslave another country on the way to Moscow. I hope Obama will think again and everything will be resolved peacefully
that is some hardcore conspiracy theory stuff lol. is that what they teach yall in school in mother russia?
As Americans you uncomfortable to hear this, but you can make up your own, independent opinion just by looking at the problem from both sides. you have a right to assume that it Freemasonry fiction. this is the most comfortable position
On the way to Moscow ? Excuse me, are you believing the world thinks moscow is the ultimate target ? What for ? It's not Cold War anymore, and Russia is hardly a "target" for anyone. Sure they are more relevant than France for example who still thinks highly of itself, but... not *that* much. Yeah, take a look at both sides :-D
For example the side of these people killed by their government. 1400dead, 400children. I'm sure those children were wannabe-terrorists. I trust the expertise of my coworkers who, while we are not important anymore, take pride in themselves, and would not have given false results on the expertise of chemicals a few months ago, just to please the US and zionism. I do not trust the russian government waving their arms "it's impoooooosssssibeul than the syrian gov used gas ! It's a trap !", since I feel them more inclined to just help their protégé and contradict the rest of the world meanwhile.
1) If this is not the Cold War that? do you think the U.S. (Rothschild Zionist) ceased to strive for world domination simply because have stated that the end of the Cold War? Masonic symbolism everywhere at the Olympic Games, summits, it just captivated the Western world. how can you believe in something that people aspired to dominate the world 2000 years, suddenly stopped. 2) Chemical weapons. Assad's army consists of 400,000 Syrians who are fighting for their country. When they reflected the massive influx of fighters (which, incidentally, made up of ex-convicts and criminals. Udovtoveritsya this you can see what they have done to the civilian population.) And now, all of a sudden they found chemical weapons. As time. If they began to persecute their own citizens, then turned to Assad's army against him. you can just slip the chemical weapons, and all the West believe in it with your brainwashed. how can you believe in "democracy", it's funny ...
Btw Once the Americans have invaded Iraq under the pretext of chemical weapons. And did not find anything other than oil believe in fairy tales several times, speaks volumes about your intellectual level. need to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. and think with your head, not the head of who wrote the text for the news. "We did not even searched for chemical weapons, and simply wrote in the news for taking the stupid Americans and believe us, because we feed them their burgers and warm and good" - enough to shepherd the flock has gone beyond. America is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against the civilian population, so it is not surprising that they are capable of a simple fraud.
Iraq was a disaster from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, but from an empire building standpoint it is now on the US side (or neutral) whereas 10 years ago it was an enemy.
Establishing all that infrastructure and bases in Iraqi served the US interests, they would love to do the same in Syria. Establish a wider net of control over the middle east.
The US is playing the long game, they want complete control of the region. The Bush/Obama presidencies seem to have one coherent military strategy.
Seen some videos showing the aftermath of the chemical attacks, and they got me interested how the hell did we end up here. The fact that this thread was created more than 2 years ago was almost more shocking than those videos. It's amusing how much you miss, if you only rely on your "average" media, because it seems that the next day being too hot or cold was more important than this.
Well, my faith in humanity did not disappoint; it's nice to see that after more than 2 years we MIGHT do something. Reminds me why I stopped caring about politics alltogether; bunch of pretentous people unable to make a difference, while being so vocal about the tiniest shits. You watch a congress (or whatever it's called in each country) and they are so passionate about doing their little political dances, trying to belittle their "opponents" not sure if quotation marks are needed), while things like the Syrian war is going on on the other side.
Personally I wouldn't mind at all if the USA intervened, but I know Obama would get so much shit for it, just for the sake of it. Funny how countries react to things like this, you'd think stuff like this goes without question, when you watch those videos, where+ Show Spoiler +
children are on their death, with foaming mouths and trembling bodies, while others try to cool off their body with water
. Someone was pretty mad that the media use these children, but like what the fuck, let me not feel being the brainwashed sheep when I want the party who did (and does) this suffer.
Iraq was a disaster from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, but from an empire building standpoint it is now on the US side (or neutral) whereas 10 years ago it was an enemy.
Establishing all that infrastructure and bases in Iraqi served the US interests, they would love to do the same in Syria. Establish a wider net of control over the middle east.
The US is playing the long game, they want complete control of the region. The Bush/Obama presidencies seem to have one coherent military strategy.
We don't hold much influence in Iraq (especially when compared to Iran), and we lost our puppet in Egypt (Mubarak).
Losing Egypt alone was a colossal loss for us. It completely changed our power and influence in the Mideast considering Egypt is pivotal in the Arab world in terms of influence, media, and political leverage. Them being "free agents" again is almost as worrisome as it was for us and UK in the Nasser-Sadat days. Of course, we don't know how things will go, but the fact of the matter is we lost Egypt for the most part. It could be worse, though, if the Muslim Brotherhood was still in power, then we would really have to kiss Egypt goodbye.
Bases in Iraq? We withdrew all our troops from Iraq. Maliki even made it a national holiday lol. Since when do we still have bases in Iraq? Did something change?
The Iraqis are neutral at best (even that is pretty optimistic). They never had issues with us beforehand until we spent the past 20 years sending them back to the stone age. They hate our guts, and I can't blame them. Sanctions, then war. Now the country's pretty much something out of Fallout. At the very least, it's safe to say our relations with Iraq are a lot worse than they were pre-1991, and only slightly better, at best, from pre-2003, but that's pushing it I think. Regardless, the way things are going, it's only diminishing. :/
Please explain to me how our empire is growing more powerful in the Mideast? This Arab spring in particular is losing us a shitton of ground just to speak of recent events.
On September 02 2013 04:51 unigolyn wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Show nested quote + -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is the most hilariously ironic thing I've seen in weeks. FYI, we're about the furthest thing from a Russian satellite nation.
And if Ghan is anything like me, he probably knows more about US politics than 99% of Americans. That's the thing with cultural hegemony, every literate person in the world knows your domestic issues inside out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you seriously going to make that claim? "Every literate person" is far too wide a net.
Thats an overstatement off course but he is kinda right. The world knows alot more about the usa then the usa knows about the world. American tv shows and news channels are beeing aired all over the world,people learn about american isues just by watching thoose shows and news programs.
Iraq was a disaster from a humanitarian and moral standpoint, but from an empire building standpoint it is now on the US side (or neutral) whereas 10 years ago it was an enemy.
Establishing all that infrastructure and bases in Iraqi served the US interests, they would love to do the same in Syria. Establish a wider net of control over the middle east.
The US is playing the long game, they want complete control of the region. The Bush/Obama presidencies seem to have one coherent military strategy.
We don't hold much influence in Iraq (especially when compared to Iran), and we lost our puppet in Egypt (Mubarak).
Losing Egypt alone was a colossal loss for us. It completely changed our power and influence in the Mideast considering Egypt is pivotal in the Arab world in terms of influence, media, and political leverage. Them being "free agents" again is almost as worrisome as it was for us and UK in the Nasser-Sadat days. Of course, we don't know how things will go, but the fact of the matter is we lost Egypt for the most part. It could be worse, though, if the Muslim Brotherhood was still in power, then we would really have to kiss Egypt goodbye.
Bases in Iraq? We withdrew all our troops from Iraq. Maliki even made it a national holiday lol. Since when do we still have bases in Iraq? Did something change?
The Iraqis are neutral at best (even that is pretty optimistic). They never had issues with us beforehand until we spent the past 20 years sending them back to the stone age. They hate our guts, and I can't blame them. Sanctions, then war. Now the country's pretty much something out of Fallout. At the very least, it's safe to say our relations with Iraq are a lot worse than they were pre-1991, and only slightly better, at best, from pre-2003, but that's pushing it I think. Regardless, the way things are going, it's only diminishing. :/
Please explain to me how our empire is growing more powerful in the Mideast? This Arab spring in particular is losing us a shitton of ground just to speak of recent events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq#Full_withdrawal_.282011.29 The U.S. will retain an embassy in Baghdad[23] with some 17,000 personnel,[24] consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more than 1,000 staff each[24] and between 4,000 to 5,000 defense contractors.[23] President Obama and al-Maliki outlined a broad agenda for post-war cooperation without American troops in Iraq during a joint press conference on 12 December 2011 at the White House. This agenda includes cooperation on energy, trade and education as well as cooperation in security, counter-terrorism, economic development and strengthening Iraq's institutions. Both leaders said their countries will maintain strong security, diplomatic and economic ties after the last U.S. combat forces withdraw at the end of 2011.[25][26]
The US has substantial assets on the ground in Iraq and no doubt retains the rights to use its airspace if needed. The Iraqi government may talk tough to placate its people, but they are in the US's back pocket..... easily more so than under Saddam Hussein.
Alright the embassies. It's a bit different than occupation/having proper and war-equipped military bases, which is what I thought you were initially saying. But I get what you mean now.
Still, if they're in our back pocket, then Iran has them in every pocket in their cargo shorts and in their boxers. Even in the Bush days, there were very grave concerns about the insane influence Iran has in Iraq, which has grown since. Maliki gives the Ayatollah blowjobs and placates the US when it benefits him. Not a Mubarak, but certainly not on the other extremity of the spectrum like Nasser either. The worst rhetoric or action made against us was making a national holiday basically taking a jab at the US.
At the very least, I am certainly not against US ties with Iraq. The country hasn't developed at all in 20 years, in fact it's gone way backwards. It'd be nice to see that country move forward for a change. The development certainly benefits us a lot too, so we have no reason not to do so. However, Iraq is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It's going to be a miracle for investment money to be going where it's supposed to be going.
We do have permanent military bases there. You think we're just going to abandon multi-billion dollar airport/fortress construction investments just like that? Yes we pulled our troops back, but we never wanted the troops to stay there forever.
So i ve been crusing through various videos and stuff on syria and find this video to be incredibly informative and clear of all ive seen so far. ~sharing.
On September 02 2013 17:01 Rosie wrote: Сivilian Syrians thank Russia for support, they are completely on the side of Russia. I think they know better than you.
On September 02 2013 17:01 Rosie wrote: Сivilian Syrians thank Russia for support, they are completely on the side of Russia. I think they know better than you.
So did you poll them or what?
thousands of syrian civillianz on street support russia. its enough.
On September 02 2013 17:01 Rosie wrote: Сivilian Syrians thank Russia for support, they are completely on the side of Russia. I think they know better than you.
thousands of syrian civillianz on street support russia. its enough.
Already backtracking are we? Funny how "they are completely on the side of Russia" turns into random youtube videos and "thousands are enough". At least you don't attempt to hide how wrong you are.
That's a good example, boys and girls, why you don't look for news in random youtube videos (referring to promiseme's post). - they are full of flat out verifiable lies. For example consider the claim that "the previous UN inspection team found that rebels used chemical weapons" (02.35) There was no earlier UN inspection team, and there is no UN report that the rebels used chemical weapons. And this is easily verified as you can check for UN reports.
I stopped soon after when he was offering a conspiracy theory regarding the FED. Go read verified news sources which fact check their claims. The reason why this guy isn't more well known is not that he's shunned by main stream media or whatnot, it's because he is full of shit.
EPT
believe in fairy tales several times, speaks volumes about your intellectual level. need to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. and think with your head, not the head of who wrote the text for the news. "We did not even searched for chemical weapons, and simply wrote in the news for taking the stupid Americans and believe us, because we feed them their burgers and warm and good" - enough to shepherd the flock has gone beyond. America is the only country that has used nuclear weapons against the civilian population, so it is not surprising that they are capable of a simple fraud.
