If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad.
How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons?
Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane.
When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one.
white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...
i see we have already started the gymnastics.
its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
Nuclear weapons are listed as category on its own;)
Englands no against action also starting to make more sense now. The said no so the usa could back off (due to rusia) without loosing face lol.
If we are talking about humanitarian reasons, why US doesnt take the shitloads of money missiles and bombs costs and spend it on averting some human disaster in africa. They would use their money much more effectively and saved much more lives. Intervening in Syria might even makes matters worse, outcome is unclear. Its really bad idea. So no, if they bomb Syria, they wont do it in order to save lives (its just bad excuse).
And main reason why checmical weapons are banned (remember when they where banned first!) is beacuse they are terrible for morale, and make waging war very difficult.
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad.
How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons?
Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane.
When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one.
white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...
i see we have already started the gymnastics.
its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
Afaik white phosphorous is considered a "burn"(incendiary) weapon like napalm, not chemical...
If we are talking about humanitarian reasons, why US doesnt take the shitloads of money missiles and bombs costs and spend it on averting some human disaster in africa.
The US just like Europe has given shitloads of money in economic and humanitarian aid to Africa. Trillions of dollars in loans and services and goods have been given to Africa over the last 50 years.
Unfortunately the history of non-military foreign aid to Africa whether it comes from the USA or not is that large amounts of it never reaches the people who need it. Because men with guns divert it to themselves or the areas where it is needed most are too violent for safe distribution. How to deal with these men with guns without going to war has proved a rather unsolvable problem
Trillions of dollars in loans and services and goods have been given to Africa over the last 50 years.
Yup, LOANS. All thoose loans and the compounded interest on them have only pulled these countrys further down. They are now in a hole they never can get out.
On September 07 2013 17:48 Rassy wrote: Trillions of dollars in loans and services and goods have been given to Africa over the last 50 years.
Yup, LOANS. All thoose loans and the compounded interest on them have only pulled these countrys further down. They are now in a hole they never can get out.
Honestly I didn't think people still believed in that particular awfully bad theory
20 years ago the world acting through the IMF, World Bank, and individual governments started on debt relief programs for African countries
Africa's overall level of foreign debt has remained stable for most of the time since
On September 07 2013 21:01 niteReloaded wrote: I am curious, please vote in appropriate Poll based on whether you're a US citizen or not. + Show Spoiler +
Poll for US citizens (another poll for NON-US is below):
Poll: Do you think USA should do any sort of military action against Syria?
No (17)
74%
Yes (6)
26%
23 total votes
Your vote: Do you think USA should do any sort of military action against Syria?
In my questioning of the Administration’s case on Syria, I have focused on holes within their own story — inconsistent numbers, claims about chain-of-command even while boasting of a hundred defections, false assurances about the reliability of the rebels. Note, too, Jim’s catch about the timing of a rebel advance.
All the while I’ve been reading the several strands of stories alleging that rebel-tied people, not Assad, caused the attack. There’s the story that hacked emails show a recently retired American Colonel assuring his wife that the dead Syrian kids were just for show. There’s a new letter from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (who warned about the Iraq WMD) warning that Syria is a trap.
I’m not confident yet I buy these stories — and besides, there’s plenty of evidence that Vladimir Putin is waging as heavy a propaganda battle as the US government, so it could well be Russian propaganda.
But given all this, there’s one more item that deserves far more attention. Back in early August, I noted a Reuters report of a meeting between Bandar bin Sultan and Putin, in which Bandar offered Putin a lot of things he couldn’t deliver so long as Putin would give up on supporting Bashar al-Assad.
The day of the CW attack, what is clearly Putin’s version of the story got published. In addition to it depicting Bandar basically concluding (at the end of July) that “there is no escape from the military option” in Syria, it also alleged that Bandar claimed he could shut down jihadist influence in Syria and suggested he could prevent Chechen terrorists from attacking the Sochi Olympics. Or not, depending on whether Putin cooperated.
Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. … As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”
Putin thanked King Abdullah for his greetings and Bandar for his exposition, but then he said to Bandar, “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”
Again, this is clearly Putin’s version of the meeting. We should assume it is at least partly propaganda.
However, the allegation that Bandar either implicitly or explicitly threatened the Olympics does very closely resemble a threat Bandar is documented to have made in the past.
Back in 2004, the British Serious Fraud Office started to investigate the Al-Yamamah arms deal under Maggie Thatcher, in which BAE would bribe members of the Saudi royal family to sell arms (as a special side deal, the bribes became a slush fund to run covert ops). In 2005, BAE started pressuring SFO to drop the investigation in the public interest, at first citing the business BAE would lose if SFO continued the investigation. Then in December 2006, Bandar flew to Britain and threatened Tony Blair that the Saudis would stop counterterrorism cooperation unless SFO dropped the investigation. Within weeks, SFO dropped the investigation.
That threat is documented this way in the paperwork describing the efforts to drop the investigation.
Similarly [REDACTION] approach to [REDACTION] via the [REDACTION] appears to have been confined to the effect on the Typhoon and Al Yamamah contract. [REDACTION] raises the prospect that Saudi co-operation on counter terrorism and the relationship on Iraq and the wider Middle East will suffer. The Cabinet Secretary has raised the possibility of harm to intelligence gathering, [REDACTION] and to multinational initiative to try to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict concluding that “if the Saudis are already starting to take such steps in relation to the Typhoon programme, then we must anticipate that they could follow though (sic) [REDACTION] in relation to counter terrorism and the bi-lateral relationship.”
But subsequent reporting of the meeting (based an investigation of SFO’s decision described the threats as even more explicit predictions of a repeat of the 7/7 Tube attack.
Saudi Arabia’s rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.
Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced “another 7/7″ and the loss of “British lives on British streets” if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.
The threat — at least as portrayed — is about withdrawing intelligence and in doing so ensuring the Brits get attacked. It’s not — as alleged in the Putin meeting — about controlling terrorists. And maybe that’s what Bandar really threatened Putin with, that he would stop sharing intelligence leading up to the Olympics.
I'm not sure what to make of your post. It's pretty much selective reading and conspiracy theory. Yes, there is a connection between some arab regimes and the militias. This is public knowledge, why that would make you question if Assad did it or not is unclear to me. The letter in all honesty is a complete and total joke, because we have seen the actual missiles. The e-mails by the 'general' are actually worse because there's no sourcing or actual verification except for a couple of meaningless screenshots as far as I'm aware.
Also, saying 'we will no longer cooperate when it comes to CT operations unless' is very different from 'if you don't do what I want I'll make sure your olympics get bombed'. One is an acceptable exercise of state sovereignty, the other close to an act of war.
If winning means using chemical weapons who cares? It does seem like an atrocity to do it against your own people but if your the victor in the end i don't think it really matters.
On September 07 2013 22:29 KaiserKieran wrote: . Why do we used guns and missiles in wars?
To win.
The point of war is to win.
If winning means using chemical weapons who cares? It does seem like an atrocity to do it against your own people but if your the victor in the end i don't think it really matters.
The world decided that there are certain weapons that should not be used, even in WAR, because of their dangerous fallout. Among those are nuclear weapons, whose danger is obvious, and chemical weapons, which basically indiscriminately target civilians who are not part of the war effort.
70 years ago you might have had a point. But 70 years ago we didn't have weapons so strong that one missile could destroy a country and two superpowers could wipe each other off the map with a few rockets.
On September 07 2013 22:29 KaiserKieran wrote: . Why do we used guns and missiles in wars?
To win.
The point of war is to win.
If winning means using chemical weapons who cares? It does seem like an atrocity to do it against your own people but if your the victor in the end i don't think it really matters.
The world decided that there are certain weapons that should not be used, even in WAR, because of their dangerous fallout. Among those are nuclear weapons, whose danger is obvious, and chemical weapons, which basically indiscriminately target civilians who are not part of the war effort.
70 years ago you might have had a point. But 70 years ago we didn't have weapons so strong that one missile could destroy a country and two superpowers could wipe each other off the map with a few rockets.
You mean destroy the entirety of life on the planet.
i do believe if the usa,un ,eu or any other country decides to enter siria they at least must assure a legal frame for the sirians which should include mandatory human rights,equal rights for men and women,education for children etc.The idea to enter a country to overturn a dictatorial group of people just so that they get replaced with another dictatorial group of people or even worse(see egypt) is unacceptable.You wanna invade syria and depose that dictator.Fine but make sure that no sharia law imposing organizations are going to come after/
I'm a pacifist, so I'm against military action by default. That said, this particular cause seems incredibly weak to me. History has shown that military intervention for the purposes of societal reconstruction rarely actually succeeds (and never in a timely manner) but that it almost always results in a huge loss of civilian (and military) life, increases tensions, sets the stage for even more wars/interventions down the line, and gives the country in question another dictator (or backward democratic party) more often than not. Even if I were utilitarian, military intervention really doesn't seem like a good idea, mostly because it probably wouldn't accomplish any relevant goals in a timely or reliable manner, and because it would inevitably result in a lot of death. That the Syrians are killing each other right now (i.e. causing death) does not justify other people causing death on the grounds that it might possibly perhaps kinda sorta maybe lessen the overall, hypothetical death toll. I mean, that's just absurd reasoning and totally disavows the notion of moral responsibility (i.e. that X is killing Y doesn't really imply that Z can kill X to stop him killing Y, with the possible exception of spur-of-the-moment defensive actions on a smaller scale; e.g. you see someone raping a woman, and you scuffle with them and, unintentionally, end up dealing a mortal wound; you are not guilty of a moral crime, in this case, of course).
There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east.
If America doesn't strike it loses all power and credibility over any and all nations of the world. They are arguably THE dominant superpower and they said no chemical weapons; or else. If they don't do something - unless they can find a way out where they can save face - they lose a lot of power on the international stage
How is that in any way relevant to what Meatex said? He is right, if the US doesn't strike they will lose credibility. I wouldn't go so far as to say "all power and credibility", but certainly America's influence will be weakened by withdrawing Obama's threat over CW use by Assad.
How can America have any credibility over the use of chem weapons when they are the ones causing terrible terrible damage in Iraq with such weapons?
Anyway i have heard mr nobel peace prize may still bomb Syria even if congress votes it down.The man is completely insane.
When did the US deploy chemical or any other kind of WMD in Iraq? I really want to see a source for this one.
white phosphorous. watch this before starting any pointless semantic mental gymnastics: ...
i see we have already started the gymnastics.
its either listed or its not. i dont see that it is listed. nuclear weapons cause all kinds of shit; they arent listed afaik. so, is it listed or not? simple question.
Nuclear weapons are listed as category on its own;)
Englands no against action also starting to make more sense now. The said no so the usa could back off (due to rusia) without loosing face lol.
Obviously not. The UK (not England) made a decision based on a vote in parliament. The government did not control the vote. Therefore, the UK saying No was not a decision made by Cameron.
On September 07 2013 23:23 radscorpion9 wrote: There are definitely a lot of uncertainties. But if the US can severely reduce the size of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, and if they can provide significant support to the rebels to overthrow Assad, and then support them in rebuilding after Assad is gone (I totally agree with Romanian thunder!!), then yes its a good idea and the moral thing to do. It doesn't matter where people are dying, whether its in the US, Rwanda, or Syria...we're all human beings and should help each other out. Lets not forget why the Syrians are fighting in the first place! They want rights and freedoms, and we can help them achieve that goal to create a more peaceful middle east.
How do you propose that they reduce the chemical weapon stockpile without putting boots on the ground? A chemical weapon is basically just a container of gas attached to a delivery device. If you bomb it then the gas will be released.
Also, the rebellion began because people wanted rights and freedom, but that was years ago. Now, the rebels with the power no longer want rights and freedom. To them it is a religious war.
On September 07 2013 22:29 KaiserKieran wrote: . Why do we used guns and missiles in wars?
To win.
The point of war is to win.
If winning means using chemical weapons who cares? It does seem like an atrocity to do it against your own people but if your the victor in the end i don't think it really matters.
The world decided that there are certain weapons that should not be used, even in WAR, because of their dangerous fallout. Among those are nuclear weapons, whose danger is obvious, and chemical weapons, which basically indiscriminately target civilians who are not part of the war effort.
70 years ago you might have had a point. But 70 years ago we didn't have weapons so strong that one missile could destroy a country and two superpowers could wipe each other off the map with a few rockets.
I agree, but I would emphasize the word used. I don't see the problem here as being Syria having chemical weapons (they signed no treaty saying they wouldn't do so and they figure it as a means of deterrence, considering they have a nuclear-armed neighbor and had a CW-armed neighbor). The problem was using those weapons against their own civilian population.
EPT
