On September 12 2013 03:21 xDaunt wrote: The point that you clearly are missing is that Obama could have done a much, much better job handling this affair than he did.
What would be the best way to solve this? All parties involved are impossible to collectively please, and there was no way Obama could predict the reaction of the country (the country doesn't want war but CW is a good reason). To me, it seems like he was put into a very awkward position, and if there was a better solution, I'm not seeing it.
But if there is an obvious best way to have dealt with this, please do share.
Okay, one thing to start off from is that no leader should ever, ever, ever issue a "red line."
Let's talk about that real quick. Red line in that context means: we won't do anything until you cross this point. Well, now you've telegraphed what you will do in the future, when you will strike. Bad idea. Always keep your enemies (and to a lesser extent your allies) guessing as to what you will or won't do, what you will or won't tolerate. Be clear about general limits, but keep specific "red lines" or "crossing the lines" in the dark.
What you've also done when you establish a "red line" is that you've told them that everything up to this point is fine and we won't do anything about it. Well, for a country or person, that is an open invitation to start doing everything up to that point to test your reaction. And then it is an open challenge that cannot be ignored to cross the red line a little and see what reaction you get. When you inevitably receive little to no reaction, it is an open invitation to cross the red-line fully.
Since Obama made that gaffe, his only option was to say: I messed up, I set a red line where there should be none, and I have no intention whatsoever in attacking Syria unless they attack us or one of our allies. That would have looked horrible for Obama, but it would have saved the country from a lot of embarrassment.
The worst thing he could have done is what he did do, which is act entirely indecisively and let Russia and Assad jerk him around and pull his strings. Now he's not only lost all that face, but he's brought the country and it's influence down with him. The absolute last thing you ever want to do is put up red-lines that you have no intention or capability of enforcing. The world learned that lesson in 1939 when Britain and France put a red-line around Poland when they had no capability (military reality) of enforcing said red-line. Obama drew a fat red-line around Syria when he had no capability (political reality) of enforcing said red-line.
Also, schooling Kerry in some basics of speaking diplomatically would be a good start.
FSA General Idriss: 'We strongly refuse Russian proposal, ask international community not to be satisfied in only taking CW away. The international community must punish the person who committed the crime. And we ask our friends to increase supply of weapons to us.'
Chomsky's anarchism makes me go :/ sometimes, but his insights are always a pleasure.
I can't stand Chomsky. The guy is ivory tower politics and morality at their worst. He completely ignores the realpolitik with the opinions that he offers on international affairs, particularly as they pertain to the US.
Chomsky's anarchism makes me go :/ sometimes, but his insights are always a pleasure.
Even at TL childish sources are usually avoided the same way you rarely see a link from World Net Daily you will rarely see a link from the left of a similar awfulness (such as Democracy Now! or any of the Pacifica network shows)
Chomsky's insights are self-defeating and basically a cop-out, they're an update of the mystification argument of 120 years ago and it's just as ineffective now as it was then. It's really hard to argue that a manufactured reality dominates society when there are so many different manufactured realities competing. Chomsky's just butthurt the way he's been butthurt for 45 years that his version of manufactured reality doesn't dominate society.
@DeepElemBlues, it's not like the man has wrote over 100 books and worked as a professor at MIT, hell if that was the case maybe he would be a valid source! Noam Chomsky is a genius that has watched society fall to corporatism, but that's okay. Like seriously what constituted a non childish source to you? A butt hurt right winged war fanatic ? I'm just curious, sorry!
The whole Syrian situation seems pretty outrageous, with the US threatening to strike and saying they will do so before the UN reveals their findings from their samples they took from Syria. To top off that, John Kerry has made a great proposal for destroying all of Syria's chemical weapons via Russia, that Russia and Syria have agreed upon. The problem is the whole situation seems fishy to me, like it isn't going to end that easy, but hopefully it does.
I am not sure if this has been linked, but there are reports as early as May this year of Rebels using chemical weapons.
Why the double standard on the Syrian government? I'm just curious. Why can the rebels use them and the Syrian government cannot? Because one must obey international law?
It seems a little unlikely that Assad would launch the chemical attacks considering the international and political consequences, especially with Obama having his Red Line. Perhaps the CIA has to do with the chemical attacks? But the White House is very sure White House spokesman Jay Carney reiterated the point, saying that "anyone who approaches this logically" would conclude that Assad is responsible. Do you remember the WMDs in Iraq? The White House was sure then too, when also referring to classified information as support. ( http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/27/216172145/is-it-possible-the-syrian-rebels-not-assad-used-chemical-weapons )
Several individuals with intelligence backgrounds have signed a memo titled “Is Syria a Trap?”. ( http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/truth-leaking-out-nerve-gas-points-to-rebels/ ) "The analysts referred to a meeting a week before the Aug. 21 incident in which opposition military commanders ordered preparations for an “imminent escalation” due to a “war-changing development” that would be followed by the “U.S.-led bombing of Syria.”
It seems that this could just be another classic work of the CIA and the US military. Did the US care when we decimated thousands of South Eastern Asians throughout the 50s and 60s? When we were bombing Laos villagers, were we humanitarians? "[The Laos operation] is something of which we can be proud as Americans. It has involved virtually no American casualties. What we are getting for our money there... is, I think, to use the old phrase, very cost effective." - U. Alexis Johnson, US Secretary of State, 1971
The CIA and US military are strategic not humanitarian, and that's exactly the reason for the Laos bombings. A strike on Syria because it's inhumane to watch so many innocent die from chemical weapons? I highly doubt it. Even if the Assad regime was responsible, it's more of an excuse to have a resource foothold once more in the middle east. Syria, China, and Russia all claim that oil prices would be substantially effected by the strikes. ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes )
Of course the cold war is over, but it has been rehashed into the war on terror. Obama's speech yesterday referenced WMDs and Al Qaeda(which supposedly will be strengthened by our inaction). Al Qaeda are the new communists, for this is like the domino effect all over again, and the WMDs are the soviet weapons we supposedly always come across, which more than half the time in the past were all planted by the military or CIA or never found.
On September 12 2013 06:18 ZaeYeL wrote: The CIA and US military are strategic not humanitarian, and that's exactly the reason for the Laos bombings. A strike on Syria because it's inhumane to watch so many innocent die from chemical weapons? I highly doubt it. Even if the Assad regime was responsible, it's more of an excuse to have a resource foothold once more in the middle east. Syria, China, and Russia all claim that oil prices would be substantially effected by the strikes. ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/syria-china-russia-opposing-military-strikes )
Of course the cold war is over, but it has been rehashed into the war on terror. Obama's speech yesterday referenced WMDs and Al Qaeda(which supposedly will be strengthened by our inaction). Al Qaeda are the new communists, for this is like the domino effect all over again, and the WMDs are the soviet weapons we supposedly always come across, which more than half the time in the past were all planted by the military or CIA or never found.
Welcome to the new cold war.
No one who is serious is pretending that American concerns in Syria are strictly humanitarian (though that is one element). It's about competing spheres of influence between major countries. In this way, you're wrong in asserting that is about Al Qaeda and a new cold war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is small potatoes compared to the real parties in interest. Syria is a Russian and Iranian ally. Russia and Iran are geopolitical adversaries of the US, even such adversarial relationship is not as intense as it was during the Cold War. The Syrian civil war has simply become a proxy battle between the US and these other countries.
Have you played MGS4? It's like that, but without the privatized armies.
@DeepElemBlues, it's not like the man has wrote over 100 books and worked as a professor at MIT, hell if that was the case maybe he would be a valid source! Noam Chomsky is a genius that has watched society fall to corporatism, but that's okay. Like seriously what constituted a non childish source to you? A butt hurt right winged war fanatic ? I'm just curious, sorry!
Noam Chomsky is a joke get over it
Noam Chomsky = the poor man's Thorstein Veblen and Randolph Bourne (among others)
He's a butthurt socialist who is butthurt that no one but true believers listens to him
He should have stuck to linguistics
If regurgitating (and grossly simplifying) left-wing cant that far smarter men than he wrote 100 years go constitutes being a "genius" then shit half the posters at TL are certifiable call MENSA
WND is a bunch of butt hurt right wing war fanatics I said they were just as childish and unserious as Democracy Now! because they're both childish manufactured reality machines and Noam Chomsky is probably the number one manufactured reality specialist in the world no one better at weaving fantasies that comfort him when he ruminates over why he is so irrelevant
I'm just curious, what would it take you to actually read carefully, sorry!
On September 12 2013 06:26 xDaunt wrote: No one who is serious is pretending that American concerns in Syria are strictly humanitarian (though that is one element). It's about competing spheres of influence between major countries. In this way, you're wrong in asserting that is about Al Qaeda and a new cold war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is small potatoes compared to the real parties in interest. Syria is a Russian and Iranian ally. Russia and Iran are geopolitical adversaries of the US, even such adversarial relationship is not as intense as it was during the Cold War. The Syrian civil war has simply become a proxy battle between the US and these other countries.
Have you played MGS4? It's like that, but without the privatized armies.
I have not played MGS4. I understand that it's more about competing spheres of influence between major countries. I was referring to Al Qaeda and WMDs being the new go to words for white house rhetoric, not that Al Qaeda is a huge threat at all. The American people though, are told to believe that Al Qaeda is the real threat, which in the general public's eyes seems like a valid threat. The cold war wasn't much about defeating communism most of the time is also something to note. Communism was a facade to hide the true intentions of the US, which are 100 percent strategic. It wasn't about the moralistic fight for capitalism and the demonic ideals of communism, which is what the general public was lead to believe. During the Cold War anytime a third world nation was not doing exactly what the US wanted, we accused them of leftist tendencies / converting to the communists which the accusations were then followed by CIA / Military infiltration of said country (if not already) and the many times democratically elected leader was overthrown and replaced with a brutal dictator. America wants what she wants, and if she wants Syrian resources, shes got it. Al Qaeda and WMDs are just new excuses for military conflict/intervention/expenditures, and in that way it's a new cold war; that's what I was trying to say at least.
Stop bringing all these other topics into this discussion unless you can show an actual relationship between them. I feel like Walter Sobchak just walked in, except he would actually be entertaining with his buddies dying in the mud spiel. You're just throwing shit into a fan and hoping we all get used to the smell and don't call you on it.
I love how the go-to platitude for pseudo-intellectuals who are too lazy to think about a complex reality is always resources. As if physical fucking resources are always at the heart of every conflict. Yeah, never-mind Geo-political influence, never-mind competing ideologies, never-mind anything that actually takes an ounce of rational consideration... nope. "It's all the resources man!!!!"
Al-Qaeda's only role in this discussion so far has been being used as an argument against the military strike. Which you would know if you didn't apply your flawed and oversimplified slogan-arguments to every single conflict that arises involving the US. At least make an attempt to become educated on the fucking topic before you walk in giving dire proclamations as if they are new. The novelty on these bullshit "CIA is behind everything!!!!!" theories wore off 50+ years ago, now they've moved beyond beating a dead horse into whining that the dead horse rotted away long ago and isn't there to be beaten anymore.
John Kerry's "proposal" was the stupidest thing anyone has heard in a long time. If you actually think the Russians or the Syrians have any interest whatsoever in giving up their chemical weapons than you have no business discussing politics. A great proposal... don't make me fucking laugh. If John Kerry could take back anything he's ever said in his life, it's that "great proposal" you're talking about...
I can respect someone who comes on here and actually has some glimmer of rational thought behind their arguments, but this parroting is just too much for me to give any credence to.
On September 12 2013 07:37 sc2superfan101 wrote: Stop bringing all these other topics into this discussion unless you can show an actual relationship between them. I feel like Walter Sobchak just walked in, except he would actually be entertaining with his buddies dying in the mud spiel. You're just throwing shit into a fan and hoping we all get used to the smell and don't call you on it.
I love how the go-to platitude for pseudo-intellectuals who are too lazy to think about a complex reality is always resources. As if physical fucking resources are always at the heart of every conflict. Yeah, never-mind Geo-political influence, never-mind competing ideologies, never-mind anything that actually takes an ounce of rational consideration... nope. "It's all the resources man!!!!"
Al-Qaeda's only role in this discussion so far has been being used as an argument against the military strike. Which you would know if you didn't apply your flawed and oversimplified slogan-arguments to every single conflict that arises involving the US. At least make an attempt to become educated on the fucking topic before you walk in giving dire proclamations as if they are new. The novelty on these bullshit "CIA is behind everything!!!!!" theories wore off 50+ years ago, now they've moved beyond beating a dead horse into whining that the dead horse rotted away long ago and isn't there to be beaten anymore.
John Kerry's "proposal" was the stupidest thing anyone has heard in a long time. If you actually think the Russians or the Syrians have any interest whatsoever in giving up their chemical weapons than you have no business discussing politics. A great proposal... don't make me fucking laugh. If John Kerry could take back anything he's ever said in his life, it's that "great proposal" you're talking about...
I can respect someone who comes on here and actually has some glimmer of rational thought behind their arguments, but this parroting is just too much for me to give any credence to.
edit: no reason to be mean, I guess.
Lol, if you're going to call me a pseudo intellectual, I'll call you a genius . In my initial post, I only spoke of Al Qaeda twice at specifically the end, and I was referring to it as new white house rhetoric to bring the US into conflict, which it is. It was used to bring us into Iraq, and it is being used to attempt to bring the US into military conflict with Syria. I linked the war on terror to being the new cold war, with the rationale that the cold war was a time of anti-communist sentiment that seemed to be an excuse for every US conflict, much like the recent war on terror.
You claim that I have flawed arguments, yet can you please point out a single thing that I said that was so invalid? Physical resources many times are at the heart of conflicts, and if it's not physical resources it's some sort of pride or advantage to gain in the scheme of worldly relations. (BTW Resources are a huge part of geo-politics... ) My argument is not flawed, for I point out with several sources that rebels were funded by the CIA and other Arab nations for quite some time, and that there is evidence of the rebels using chemical warfare. If Syria has vital resources, why wouldn't we try utilize them. Hell isn't Starcraft all about resources / war!? And you call yourself a super fan. If the US made decisions in regards to competing ideologies whatsoever, then why have we helped overthrow numerous democracies and replaced them with dictatorial regimes? Because those new regimes adhered to our policies we were trying to enforce.
I find it hilarious that you say the CIA theories wore off 50+ years ago. Only in recent years have declassified documents disclosed the real crimes of the US, and our actual doings in many countries over a good bit of the 20th century. Did you know the CIA was responsible, self-claiming, for terrorist bombings in Bologna Italy in the mid 20th century? I have proof if needed that I can PM.
Russia and Syria agreed to the proposal, and like I said I think it's a glimmer of hope, because in reality it's not going to happen. Kerry would take back that proposal because it's against the interest of the US. This is a war that we are trying to provoke.
You're not rational at all, and have merely insulted me and acted like an asshat who supposedly knows so much. Hey knowitall, get off your insult horse and be nice. Break down my post and show how wrong I am, show me how my sources don't have any credibility. Show me that the CIA doesn't have numerous declassified documents depicting their ludicrous behavior along with the US Military. This ludicrous behavior involves killing thousands upon thousands time and time again. I can cite numerous examples, WITH VALID CITATIONS, of the CIA infiltrating countries and trying (usually with success) to cause their demise. Would you like me to? So that you can debunk all those? I mean you seem to be so smart!!!!! I would rather focus on the Syrian civil war though, which my chunk of cheese to add was that the rebels have been consistently funded by the US / CIA, and we want to start conflict there ASAP so the Assad regime falls and a new US ally may emerge. It makes sense strategically, even if it's just to have a pawn in northern Africa for influential purposes.
And please sc2superfan101/terribletroll tell me that Noam Chomsky is a pseudo-intellectual with flawed arguments, please, so I can basque in your intellectualism. Also if you want those examples I can send you them through PMs, I'd love to have a private mutually educational discussion. Next time though, can you refrain from making blanketed statements about my post without breaking down a single point that I made, beyond, the CIA is a horse I'm just beating, and it's all about the resources man (super condescending tone, troll man 101).
On September 12 2013 08:39 ZaeYeL wrote: Did you know the CIA was responsible, self-claiming, for terrorist bombings in Bologna Greece in the mid 20th century? I have proof if needed that I can PM.
Please do. And please start with proof that Bologna is in Greece, which I'm sure most Italians would contest.
FSA General Idriss: 'We strongly refuse Russian proposal, ask international community not to be satisfied in only taking CW away. The international community must punish the person who committed the crime. And we ask our friends to increase supply of weapons to us.'
I can't agree more, i find this idea of taking away Syrian CW's after they used them against their own god damn people, it is an affront to humanity and international law (even more than this illegal attack on Syria), it made incredibly mad when i heard this interview and this jerk was talking about this "awesome" idea that the US wouldn't attack if Syria resigned to their CW weapons, i mean who the fuck gave this guy the go to say something like that on TV? WTF, i mean i'm quite used to american politicians fucking up badly but this? this is a whole new level.
Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over.
On September 12 2013 08:39 ZaeYeL wrote: Did you know the CIA was responsible, self-claiming, for terrorist bombings in Bologna Greece in the mid 20th century? I have proof if needed that I can PM.
Please do. And please start with proof that Bologna is in Greece, which I'm sure most Italians would contest.
I mistyped, sorry : ( , it is Italy, and I also sent you the information supporting my claim, it was a part of Operation Gladio which are CIA documents that recently have been declassified.
On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over.
Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade.
Hello guys. I don't usually post here, but I like to follow the post's to see how people from other nations discuss the world relations. I tried to find something about this on the forums (looked for world war 3, StormCloudsGathering and the titles of some of his videos) with no success, so I am posting it here: .
This guy made some VERY ACCURATE predictions about what's unfolding now and they were made ONE YEAR ago. There are some very valid points! As someone that's not bombarded by the mainstream american media, I would like to know what you think about it.
I really would like to understand how a population can accept the idea that bombarding a country can be related to the "freedom", "human rights" and "justice".
So i was searching in r/Politics and found this Video
I was quite shoked by the video but i asked mysellf if it was really planned all along ... i mean did they really plan all these years what is happening to syria right now.. cause i cant imagine how this was a secret until today...and if its true does it mean that there are other things we dont know yet about the Civil war and if there gonna be more than just a civil war.... im starting to believe that we are screwed and gonne be in deep shit ....
EPT
. In my initial post, I only spoke of Al Qaeda twice at specifically the end, and I was referring to it as new white house rhetoric to bring the US into conflict, which it is. It was used to bring us into Iraq, and it is being used to attempt to bring the US into military conflict with Syria.
....
