|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:
It takes a special kind of pretentiousness to advocate for a war which your country isn't going to be involved in, let alone you won't be fighting in. It's not something I, for one, would ever do. And it's not something that America, as a country, has ever done. That's that exceptionalism Obama was talking about in Tuesday's address.
You only have to go back to the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia to see a war America didn't want to fight in but advocated for:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-ethiopia_x.htm
|
Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours.
Not a single word about a "boots on the ground" has been said. And yes, you are right about it, we haven't been paying a bunch of rebels to fight for our political interests on the middle east, so we get to this situation on Syria today, tho. I think that's fucking fair to the civvies on Syria, either to stop this through negotiations (which is a lose situation for the US) or removing Assad by helping the rebels. Either way, there needs to be a real plan to end this civil war which has been fueled by the likes of your country. But no, you don't have a fucking single responsability, right ?
Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led -- that's already been firmly established. Without America, you don't have anyone in international politics doing anything at all, let alone playing a "retarded child's game". Without our threats, there is no game at all. Here's Spain's de-facto contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619
Did you read the article ?
Again, what is your OWN contribution ? That's what you asked for before. Calling me hypocrate for advocating something i haven't done myself.
How's that for a retarded child's game?
How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks.
By the way, the the child's political play in display has been the removal of chemical weapons from Assad, after he probably already used them and commited crimes against humanity with them anyways.
.
Again, read the fucking article, thank you.
|
Warning! graphic Pictures in the video provided by the Link.
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/09/12/witness-to-a-syrian-execution-i-saw-a-scene-of-utter-cruelty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1
TIME obtained the images exclusively from a photographer who was recently in Syria. This decapitation was the last of four executions he documented that day. TIME has agreed not to publish the photographer’s name, to protect him from repercussions when he returns to Syria. What follows is an edited account of his experience:
The man was brought in to the square. His eyes were blindfolded. I began shooting pictures, one after the other. It was to be the fourth execution that day I would photograph. I was feeling awful; several times I had been on the verge of throwing up. But I kept it under control because as a journalist I knew I had to document this, as I had the three previous beheadings I had photographed that day, in three other locations outside Aleppo.
The crowd began cheering. Everyone was happy. I knew that if I tried to intervene I would be taken away, and that the executions would go ahead. I knew that I wouldn’t be able to change what was happening and I might put myself in danger.
I saw a scene of utter cruelty: a human being treated in a way that no human being should ever be treated. But it seems to me that in two and a half years, the war has degraded people’s humanity. On this day the people at the execution had no control over their feelings, their desires, their anger. It was impossible to stop them.
I don’t know how old the victim was but he was young. He was forced to his knees. The rebels around him read out his crimes from a sheet of paper. They stood around him. The young man was on his knees on the ground, his hands tied. He seemed frozen.
Two rebels whispered something into his ear and the young man replied in an innocent and sad manner, but I couldn’t understand what he said because I don’t speak Arabic.
At the moment of execution the rebels grasped his throat. The young man put up a struggle. Three or four rebels pinned him down. The man tried to protect his throat with his hands, which were still tied together. He tried to resist but they were stronger than he was and they cut his throat. They raised his head into the air. People waved their guns and cheered. Everyone was happy that the execution had gone ahead.
That scene in Syria, that moment, was like a scene from the Middle Ages, the kind of thing you read about in history books. The war in Syria has reached the point where a person can be mercilessly killed in front of hundreds of people—who enjoy the spectacle.
As a human being I would never have wished to see what I saw. But as a journalist I have a camera and a responsibility. I have a responsibility to share what I saw that day. That’s why I am making this statement and that’s why I took the photographs. I will close this chapter soon and try never to remember it.
|
|
|
On September 13 2013 18:59 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +
Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours.
Not a single word about a "boots on the ground" has been said. And yes, you are right about it, we haven't been paying a bunch of rebels to fight for our political interests on the middle east, so we get to this situation on Syria today, tho. I think that's fucking fair to the civvies on Syria, either to stop this through negotiations (which is a lose situation for the US) or removing Assad by helping the rebels. Either way, there needs to be a real plan to end this civil war which has been fueled by the likes of your country. But no, you don't have a fucking single responsability, right ? Show nested quote +Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led -- that's already been firmly established. Without America, you don't have anyone in international politics doing anything at all, let alone playing a "retarded child's game". Without our threats, there is no game at all. Here's Spain's de-facto contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619 Did you read the article ? Again, what is your OWN contribution ? That's what you asked for before. Calling me hypocrate for advocating something i haven't done myself. Show nested quote +
How's that for a retarded child's game?
How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks.
By the way, the the child's political play in display has been the removal of chemical weapons from Assad, after he probably already used them and commited crimes against humanity with them anyways.
.
Again, read the fucking article, thank you.
I've read the article.
You don't even mention anything about these rebels. Did you read the article? How about the other article I linked?
They're Al-Qaeda, some of these rebels, some who came from Spain - committing atrocities of their own. And you're somehow convinced that my country somehow owes it to you to help them. We're already selling them weapons, which we shouldn't be, seeing as how we've spent countless lives and resources fighting them elsewhere.
Help yourself. Your attitude towards this is so pathetic. This isn't America's problem. And yes, you have been advocating for something "more" to be done, and now, what?, you want to pretend as if that means something besides military intervention? We've been doing everything else we can, you're fucking welcome, because we REALLY shouldn't be.
But no, you don't have a fucking single responsability, right ?
Of course I don't.
But yes, you've made it abundantly clear you think my country has responsibility to pay for your country's problems, in whatever way you think proper, while realizing that this sort of "gratuity" will never be reciprocated. Somehow, without any sane, rational explanation, you've declared that Syria is America's fault and America's problem.
It's disgusting. We have no business or reason to help Al-Qaeda rebels, just because you're so convinced, based on what limited information you have, that the Syrian government is so much worse than whatever hell we're going to create in the wake of its destruction.
And who'll be responsible for that aftermath? You? Spain? Oh, sure, we won't have "boots on the ground", right, sure, until Obama says it's necessary, we'll just bomb the country and let the civil war play itself out...
No. You don't want responsibility for any of this, you just want to point fingers and advocate for warfare, like the world's worst fucking troll ever, while my country and its people pay the real price.
|
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:54 Uvantak wrote:On September 13 2013 09:22 imperator-xy wrote:On September 13 2013 07:53 a176 wrote:
So am I the only one here displeased with "the diplomatic outcome"? Are we not going to hand out punishment for gassing a thousand civilians? women, children? First we should find out who actually launched that chemical weapons attack. In my side at least i would take Assad to justioce not only because of the CW attack (since we don't have proofs yet that he did it, and probably never will), other war crimes have been committed by Assad forces (Deliberately bombing schools, the use of cluster bombs in crowded areas, Napalm against civilians, mass civilian killings, etc, etc, etc) and Al Nusra (genocidal mass killings, wide spread torture against civilians, execution of war prisoners, etc), sadly the only ones that we can get to justice are Assad's generals and government officials, and even without counting the CW attack (if they where the ones that did it) they would end up quite a few years rotting in prison. On September 13 2013 09:08 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2013 08:53 Godwrath wrote:On September 13 2013 08:24 Leporello wrote:
I'm really tired of people who very well might not even be American, let alone be a member of our armed forces who must risk their lives for this, making militaristic demands of our country.
It's really one of those points where if you're so outraged at Assad, and convinced he needs to be punished, then please, by all means, YOU go over there and punish him.
Don't demand other people all across the planet die because your political-conviction-of-the-day compels it. I was already on Kosovo, and this kind of things like Somalia or Rwanda is why i joined the army back in the 00's. Where have you been ? And i am not asking anything from your country, but the international politics to stop playing a retarded child's game just to save face. Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours. Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led. That's already been firmly established. Here's Spains contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks. It seems to me that Europe is much more involved in this than America, and yet when push comes to shove, we're the ones who're supposed to the dying and killing. Given that, I'm not sure why your opinion shouldn't be immediately dismissed. This isn't Kosovo, and this isn't 1999. This is America's choice, and America is tired of fighting other people's wars. No this isn't Kosovo, this is 2013 and if US don't intervene the US allies in the middle east will suffer the consequences of having an even stronger Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in the area. So now you will tell me "hey but why don't they invade Syria themselves?!" well, they can't, Israel can't act because they are hated by Iran and since they are so close to Iran, Iran could retaliate, Turkey it is not in condition to invade Syria, and Jordan, well, it is Jordan there's not much they can do, and about this new US "ally" Irak, it find himself in a worst political situation than Turkey so there isn't any real mid east US ally that could invade Syria, and France does not have the power that the US has to do so. The only country that find himself in the situation where it has the tools to attack and the political reasons to do so is the US, that's it there aren't any other countries with the power nor the reasons. Assad isn't Al-Qaeda, the rebels however are slightly aligned with Al Qaeda, and we're currently supplying those Al Qaeda with American weapons... Which is disgusting in itself. I think you're confused as to who we're supposed to be fighting. We're not threatening the rebels or their Al Qaeda allies. We're helping them.
FSA=/=Al Nusra, Al Nusra belongs to the FSA, but it is only A group, and the FSA is a compilation of different groups of rebels, the US is not providing weapons to Al Nusra, the US is providing weapons to the rebels groups they like, and Al Nusra is not one of them, and as i have said previously even if the where to offer them help Al Nusra probably would not accept it, they don't want to have anything to do with America in any way, they are just too proud for that.
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:Neither side in this civil war are good guys. You guys want to "punish Assad", because you're all so convinced he's the primo bad guy in this equation -- you have no FUCKING CLUE as to what kind of shit storm we might be creating. If the rebels didn't use chemical weapons it's because they don't have any. That's the only moral difference in this war. Show nested quote +“There is serious concern that if Assad falls, the extremist wings of the rebel movement will fill the vacuum and take over Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons,” said Rep. Michael T. McCaul, Texas Republican and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. Show nested quote +In written testimony, Mr. Joscelyn told the House panel Tuesday, “These same al Qaeda-affiliated forces have fought alongside Free Syrian Army brigades. There is no clear geographic dividing line between the most extreme fighters and other rebels.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/10/analysts-counter-claims-on-number-of-al-qaeda-amon/How much fun is that? Let's kill the bad guy and drop some bombs, and then everything will be better? Wrong.
There's no need for you to tell me about that, i have been writing about this before the CW where used, hell, i have being writing about this about 8 months into the conflict when i realized that the US/Nato would not get involved like they did in Lybia and when Al Qaeda started helping the rebels because they weren't getting any external help other than a few rich guys in Saudi Arabia.
The situation is the way it is now because Russia as used his Security council vote to prevent any kind of movement/aid from NATO to the rebels, and because the US didn't really have any intention/political incentive to get into the civil war anyways.
But let me ask you something, what will happen when Assad loses the war? who will ascend to power? that's right, the groups that are stronger now, and what is the name of those groups? Al Nusra/ISIS, which is another way of saying Al Qaeda, so if the US don't act and get Al Nusra the fuck away from power then Syria will become a Islamist country ruled by Al Nusra and the Sharia law, and that is a serious danger to Israel and US allies in the middle east. That's why the US has to intervene and arm not the entire FSA but the right groups in the FSA and that is exactly what they are doing now, and what you are opposing.
And yes, if Al Nusra had possession of chemical weapons they well would have used them, these guys are extremists, and that's why US can't allow them to reach the power.
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:And, again, just because you say America is the only that can do anything, doesn't mean it's obligated to do anything. You list a slew of excuses for several countries.
That is a quite powerful statement right there and it can be redirected/rebuttal with a simple, cheap and overused quote Evil Flourishes When Good Men Do Nothing.
America has his own agenda, and for the small bits of information that we have compiled it exists the chance that the Syrian Civil war was staged and planned by western powers, but this Syrian war dragged too long it seems and now they need to finish it before it gets out of their control standards (like Al Nusra ascending to power instead of a western friendly government), but this falls into conspiracy theories for now, even tho it is something to have in mind.
Beware that I'm not saying that the US is a white knight, because hell it is not, it responds only to their own interests, all the dictatorships that where imposed by them in the Cold War shows so, but in this specific Syrian case it is actually helping the Syrian people, since they want democracy or at least a higher degree of it in their government, but Assad does not want to step down from power nor bend his government to allow a higher degree of representativity, and here is where Russia gets in, Syria is Russia's ally and has invested far too much into the country to risk lose Assad's government, so when the Syrian war started & developed Russia backed up Assad, which is only normal and that developed into today's situation.
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:Not France, or Turkey or any of those countries you mentioned.
But regardless, I do recognize that America is the only one actually threatening Syria. As such, America will be the one that has to back up those threats.
So the international war-mongering peanut-gallery should try to find some restrain and respect.
Oh hell they should, i have written quite a few letters to Mujica telling him about the situation in Syria and why his words about opposing the US invasion where wrong, but as you can guess i didn't receive any answer other than "thank you for your words and concerns Mr. Anon."
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:I honestly think some of you guys just really want to see an American-led World War. If you really want to value human life, stop worrying about the dead and punishment, and start worrying about the living. Then again, it's not you or your countrymen that'll be fighting. Yet.
I worry about the living, i worry about the living in Israel, about the living in Irak and the Jordan, because if Al Nusra raises to power, or Al Nusra representatives gets high positions in the future Syrian government then things could get quite tense in the Middle East, specially with Israel since Syria has areas that are in-dispute with Israel.
This is the same situation that happens in the Trolley problem, but in a huge scale where you have to choose between killing Syrian civilians as a collateral damage of topple down Assad's government and avoid Al Nusra rise to power while putting your own friends in power, or do nothing and risk the entire middle east when Al Nusra raises to power.
On September 13 2013 10:21 Leporello wrote:It takes a special kind of pretentiousness to advocate for a war which your country isn't going to be involved in, let alone you won't be fighting in. It's not something I, for one, would ever do. And it's not something that America, as a country, has ever done. That's that exceptionalism Obama was talking about in Tuesday's address.
So you are telling me that America has not supported rebels in any war ever? oh boy that's delusional.
But let's respond to this in a right & proper fashion, what you said it is exactly what happened in WWI, WWII and many, many, many other wars where the US didn't want to get involved but they supported other countries that where and sometimes it only did so only with words and not weapons or ammo, it doesn't make sense to say that the US didn't do that, because it clearly did, it is nonsensical to negate a fact.
On September 13 2013 10:35 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2013 09:54 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 09:08 Leporello wrote:On September 13 2013 08:53 Godwrath wrote:On September 13 2013 08:24 Leporello wrote:
I'm really tired of people who very well might not even be American, let alone be a member of our armed forces who must risk their lives for this, making militaristic demands of our country.
It's really one of those points where if you're so outraged at Assad, and convinced he needs to be punished, then please, by all means, YOU go over there and punish him.
Don't demand other people all across the planet die because your political-conviction-of-the-day compels it. I was already on Kosovo, and this kind of things like Somalia or Rwanda is why i joined the army back in the 00's. Where have you been ? And i am not asking anything from your country, but the international politics to stop playing a retarded child's game just to save face. Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours. Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led. That's already been firmly established. Here's Spains contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks. It seems to me that Europe is much more involved in this than America, and yet when push comes to shove, we're the ones who're supposed to the dying and killing. Given that, I'm not sure why your opinion shouldn't be immediately dismissed. This isn't Kosovo, and this isn't 1999. This is America's choice, and America is tired of fighting other people's wars. No this isn't Kosovo, this is 2013 and if US don't intervene the US allies in the middle east will suffer the consequences of having an even stronger Al Qaeda/Al Nusra in the area. So now you will tell me "hey but why don't they invade Syria themselves?!" well, they can't, Israel can't act because they are hated by Iran and since they are so close to Iran, Iran could retaliate, Turkey it is not in condition to invade Syria, and Jordan, well, it is Jordan there's not much they can do, and about this new US "ally" Irak, it find himself in a worst political situation than Turkey so there isn't any real mid east US ally that could invade Syria, and France does not have the power that the US has to do so. The only country that find himself in the situation where it has the tools to attack and the political reasons to do so is the US, that's it there aren't any other countries with the power nor the reasons. You may need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. "Political reasons" are irrelevant in the context of the quoted discussion. If someone is giving the US flak for not getting involved, then one assumes that person wants someone helping in the war against Assad. If that person wants someone helping in the war against Assad, that person should look to their own country first if they want to sacrifice lives in some world-police military action. Now there are a couple ways this scenario can branch out from this point: 1. The person's country is unable to participate due to being a weak nation. They can insult the US at that point, but they shouldn't bash the country into the ground. You can't empathize or understand what it feels like to be the US if you've never actually been in their situation. It's easy to have an idealized image of what the US is capable of doing when they seem to have so much more than you do. I'm not saying everyone outside of the West has no idea what the US is like, because that would be stupid, but there's good odds you're a lot more wrong than you think you are. 2. The person's country is unable to participate due to having a neglected military that does not reflect their position in the world. A lot of Europe falls into this category. First world economy, first world society, not-so first world military might. If the person also lives in a democratic country (which they should if they fall into this category), they have the right to shut the fuck up about the US. If you voted people into office who decided against building up the military, you shouldn't bitch about some other nation not sacrificing their people to fight a war you decided to be too weak to fight. You live in a democracy. You want to play world police? Sacrifice your own damn people. 3. The person's country is unable to participate due to the majority of the country not wishing to participate. If this happens, it makes even less sense to bash the US. "Most of the people in my country don't care about Syria, so fuck USA!" If your own country doesn't want to fight in Syria, bash your own country. Bemoan their lack of empathy, whine about they just don't give a shit about Syria. Bashing the US in this circumstance is like getting rear-ended in a car crash and then blaming the responding police officer. The US doesn't have anything to do with your people not caring about Syria. + Show Spoiler +I'm not saying any of this is actually happening, because I don't know if it is. These scenarios are listed solely to refute faulty points made by the poster I am replying to.
My case it is a mix between two and three with more complex things mixed on, to start, i'm a Chilean immigrant in Uruguay, i arrived around three years ago, i haven't had the privilege to vote for my representative in this country and i won't have that privilege until around two years more, and i didn't in my country either because i wasn't of age to do so. But you bet that i have written quite a bit of letters to Chilean government officials and Uruguayans as well, explaining my concerns about not acting/supporting or at least not bashing the US part in this conflict.
The problem here is that in South America the US has an horrid fame because of the dictatorships it imposed during the Cold War, so no matter what i say about the future of the middle east and if the government officials believe what i say to them, they won't act, and with good reason because if they do they will be portrayed as traitors for helping the imperialist machinery of the US expanding into the middle east and that thought is there because of the trauma that the population has because of the way the US behaved 40 years ago during the Cold War and miss information from the population about the actual situation in Syria, the problem is that when i'm arguing with other South Americans/Uruguayans i can't say than that is not a reason of the invasion, because it is, but at the same time if the US does not help the rebels and gets Al Nusra and the Islamist extremists the fuck away from power the middle east could see some really tense years ahead.
|
On September 14 2013 00:41 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 18:59 Godwrath wrote:
Our country is the one that will be sending young men (and women, perhaps) to die over there. Not yours.
Not a single word about a "boots on the ground" has been said. And yes, you are right about it, we haven't been paying a bunch of rebels to fight for our political interests on the middle east, so we get to this situation on Syria today, tho. I think that's fucking fair to the civvies on Syria, either to stop this through negotiations (which is a lose situation for the US) or removing Assad by helping the rebels. Either way, there needs to be a real plan to end this civil war which has been fueled by the likes of your country. But no, you don't have a fucking single responsability, right ? Don't pretend otherwise. No one doubts that intervention in Syria will be American led -- that's already been firmly established. Without America, you don't have anyone in international politics doing anything at all, let alone playing a "retarded child's game". Without our threats, there is no game at all. Here's Spain's de-facto contributions to this conflict: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22999619Did you read the article ? Again, what is your OWN contribution ? That's what you asked for before. Calling me hypocrate for advocating something i haven't done myself.
How's that for a retarded child's game?
How about you don't advocate for a war that will have Americans fighting soldiers your country helped recruit. Thanks.
By the way, the the child's political play in display has been the removal of chemical weapons from Assad, after he probably already used them and commited crimes against humanity with them anyways.
.
Again, read the fucking article, thank you. I've read the article. You don't even mention anything about these rebels. Did you read the article? How about the other article I linked? They're Al-Qaeda, some of these rebels, some who came from Spain - committing atrocities of their own. And you're somehow convinced that my country somehow owes it to you to help them. We're already selling them weapons, which we shouldn't be, seeing as how we've spent countless lives and resources fighting them elsewhere. Help yourself. Your attitude towards this is so pathetic. This isn't America's problem. And yes, you have been advocating for something "more" to be done, and now, what?, you want to pretend as if that means something besides military intervention? We've been doing everything else we can, you're fucking welcome, because we REALLY shouldn't be. Of course I don't. But yes, you've made it abundantly clear you think my country has responsibility to pay for your country's problems, in whatever way you think proper, while realizing that this sort of "gratuity" will never be reciprocated. Somehow, without any sane, rational explanation, you've declared that Syria is America's fault and America's problem. It's disgusting. We have no business or reason to help Al-Qaeda rebels, just because you're so convinced, based on what limited information you have, that the Syrian government is so much worse than whatever hell we're going to create in the wake of its destruction. And who'll be responsible for that aftermath? You? Spain? Oh, sure, we won't have "boots on the ground", right, sure, until Obama says it's necessary, we'll just bomb the country and let the civil war play itself out...
It should be noted that there are a vast number of "Al-Qaeda Rebels" from many western countries, French, Turkish, even American and Russian citizens have been found fighting for these groups. There is even a foreign brigade of Jihadi fighters in Syria.
source
Watching CBC the other day they said that the highest number of foreign fighters based on the per-capita population of the countries Canada was the leader, go figure.
You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh?
Now here's hoping that one of a couple scenarios plays out. With UN or Arab League soldiers deployed after the conflict to ensure a some semblance of a transition of power/democratic/new authoritarian government. (because it is a UN/Arab/World problem, and USA doesn't nation build, we all know that)
1?Assad hands over the CW and the war is fought out in a conventional manner, one side victorious, the other slaughtered. *Just peachy
2?USA/maybe France? hits Syria with cruise/airstrikes, destroys runways, munitions, disabling regime control over the skies, giving rebels/FSA the upper hand. (they could also bomb Al-Nusra, other bad rebels, ect, during this procedure). *More peachy
Now you can disagree with all that, fair enough however what really p'd me off with your whole tirade was this:
You don't want responsibility for any of this, you just want to point fingers and advocate for warfare, like the world's worst fucking troll ever, while my country and its people pay the real price.
I don't think your country and your people (personally I don't consider all Canadians "my people") are paying the "real price"
The real price is being paid not by anyone, except the civilians of Syria, who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace. Don't trick yourself into thinking anything different.
|
That is a quite powerful statement right there and it can be redirected/rebuttal with a simple, cheap and overused quote Evil Flourishes When Good Men Do Nothing.
What you don't understand is that the problem isn't so simple.
This isn't just about the U.S. having the resources and not using them. Where do you think those resources come from? They come from money that is taken away from things that help American society and are put towards military might. The money that puts us so far ahead of everyone else in the world in terms of military/foreign influence takes away from money that could be spent on the huge problems we have at home. So you're not just asking us to use the influence we have, but you're asking us to continue spending money on helping others instead of helping those that need help here. You're saying that not only should we put in some effort to help those we have no direct responsibility towards, but we should actively sacrifice for those that we have no responsibility for. Is it noble? The right thing to do? In many cases, sure, but it is always a question. Is it acceptable to sacrifice better roads? More food for the homeless? More/better trained police officers? Helping cities like Detroit? Better education for our children? Putting additional funding into fighting natural disasters, like Oklahoma tornadoes and western wildfires? People talk about the huge influence and power we have all the time, but you guys don't seem to realize what we sacrifice in terms of resources to maintain that power, and how there is a very large portion of the American population that doesn't want to keep sacrificing to do this kind of shit.
And that's just talking about money/capital. What about lives and livelihoods? Someone said earlier "Oh no boots on the ground". Do you know how the hell a military works? These strikes still require pilots and sailors to be sent out across the world on dangerous missions. Even if infantry/armor isn't put onto the ground, it's not exactly safe to be an active member of the Navy when you're out on a combat-related mission, bombing and targeting people. Even if we never escalated to boots on the ground (which is a skeptical claim at best), there would be a toll and potentially lives lost.
You're correct in saying this isn't "America's fault or Problem". It's a world issue, and too bad for you but America is part of that world so it looks like when shit hits the fan, we're all gonna get covered. But I wouldn't just assume that America will have any "boots on the ground". Even though realistically the Saudi/Qatari/American funding of the groups is essentially putting mercenary boots on the ground. It should be noted that Assad also has Hezbollah, Iranian Guard, his own mercenaries fighting, fun eh?
Cool, it's a world issue.
So where the fuck is the rest of the world?
When the rest of the world makes comparable sacrifices to take action, I will be more than happy to get shipped out to Syria and not complain. Until then, you're damn right I'm going to be pissed off when it's me and a bunch of other Americans taking the brunt of the action and sacrifices to do what the world wants to see.
Cut it by how much though? The proposition given was 50%.
And it's not a matter of Russia or China "overtaking" us, it's a matter of us not being able to exert influence so they will instead.
We could still exert significant foreign influence with a notable cut in our military budget.
And how much? Who the hell knows. The point is to cut it by a significant amount. The other point is that the exact percentage doesn't matter; what matters is that we actually have that discussion, because right now we aren't. The fact that the discussion was about increasing our military budget during the 2012 elections is incredibly disturbing.
You don't know what you're talking about, and I don't care about your opinion if you're just going to offer it with nothing to back it up.
What stopped India and Pakistan from fighting a major war in 1999
What has stopped Israel from attacking Iran
What power restricts at least just a little bit the eagerness of China and the other East Asian nations for going at each other's throats over control of rocks in the seas over there and the resources below
Throw out mindless rejection all you want there isn't a serious person who thinks that the world would not get more violent and have more crises and flare-ups and stare-downs if the US said "whatever we're fucking out" and went away.
Do you even understand how our military/foreign influence works?
You do know that we can't just literally pick up and leave, right? We can't just disappear from regions of the world and leave a vacuum. Furthermore, countries/societies won't just instantly revert to what has happened in the past. It's not like our physical presence is literally the only thing keeping the world from crumbling into mass war and violence. You put way, way, way too much significance and credit on the U.S. military. We do a lot, but we don't do everything, and I'm 100% sure that if we left certain regions or stopped wasting so much money in the near future, the world wouldn't suddenly crumble. You need to stop with the God-complex you have going on about America's place in the world.
Oh, and you really need to check out how much waste is in the American military and then realize why so many of us believe that we can cut the budget significantly without gutting our military influence. Have you seen how much waste is in the Air Force alone?
|
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better.
User was warned for this post
|
Thanks for this! I've been looking for some clips of what Chomsky had to say about the situation (not that there was any doubt what he would say)
Every talk he gives is like a history lesson. He's been singing the same tune for 40 years, its too bad not many people listen. Chomsky is a hero and brave man to speak out as consistently and as brutally honest as he does.
People should study Chomsky. He's easily one of the greatest intellects of our time, he knows history better than anyone WHY IS IT HE DRAWS THE EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSION FROM THE MASS MEDIA FED PUBLIC?
Are you smarter than Noam Chomsky? Do you know history better than him?
Listen to the man! Please!
|
You need to stop with the God-complex you have going on about America's place in the world.
Thank you for that. There still are sane americans out there.
I thought i would have a stroke when i saw that guy writing something about the US being the leading intellectual and scientific powerhouse for the last 100 years or something.
Patriotism is a good thing (i actually believe that) - but if it turns into blind obsession, which for alot of americans that seem to be the case, it's dangerous. And i mean, actually dangerous.
On topic: since there's not really that much in german news, some evidence or still just hearsay alá "we totally have evidence but don't show it because fuck you"?
|
On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better.
Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events.
|
On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Well this is a fitting start to this post.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
So what's Israel's interest in getting involved? Are they better off with Assad in power or with an al Qaeda state next door? For that matter, I'd love to hear why you think the US gives enough of a shit to use covert ops like this.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
Good lord....
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
How exactly has the US ignored the UN so far with regards to Syria?
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
Fair point.
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better.
Again, what precisely has the US done to weaken the UN this way? And frankly, the US the is better than the UN as a whole. The UN is a joke. All you have to do is see which countries are on the human rights committees at any given time to have a good laugh.
|
On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events.
Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ?
What last events are you talking about exacly?
On September 14 2013 04:18 xDaunt wrote:
So what's Israel's interest in getting involved? Are they better off with Assad in power or with an al Qaeda state next door? For that matter, I'd love to hear why you think the US gives enough of a shit to use covert ops like this.
How exactly has the US ignored the UN so far with regards to Syria?
Again, what precisely has the US done to weaken the UN this way? And frankly, the US the is better than the UN as a whole. The UN is a joke. All you have to do is see which countries are on the human rights committees at any given time to have a good laugh.
Israel has 0 interest in getting involved, thats why they concoted a plan that removes them from the equation that lets all the durty work to the US.
The US was basically arranging a multilateral coalition to go in there and basically bomb syria and bully them around without any UN aproval. They also ignored the UN proceedings and lied in Lybia when they claimed they were only enforcing a no fly zone, but in truth they were heavily bombing the place.
I dont know how the rest of the world feels, but over the last 10 years I came to realize that we either have the UN or dont have nothing, trusting a single country to keep the evil in the world at bay has not worked, and will not work in the future.
Also, if you are gonna judge other countries on the UN for their past actions, then the world has the duty of never forgetting every single mistake americans ever made, and judge them all of it.
|
On September 14 2013 03:47 dsousa wrote:Thanks for this! I've been looking for some clips of what Chomsky had to say about the situation (not that there was any doubt what he would say) Every talk he gives is like a history lesson. He's been singing the same tune for 40 years, its too bad not many people listen. Chomsky is a hero and brave man to speak out as consistently and as brutally honest as he does. People should study Chomsky. He's easily one of the greatest intellects of our time, he knows history better than anyone WHY IS IT HE DRAWS THE EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSION FROM THE MASS MEDIA FED PUBLIC? Are you smarter than Noam Chomsky? Do you know history better than him? Listen to the man! Please!
Chomsyk's main accomplishments are in the field of linguistics, and in that field I gladly yield to his vast knowledge but in history? No. Just because he has a certain kind of interpretation that appeals to certain kind of people doent make him 'smarter' or 'know history better' and in fact I bet in a history off I'd beat him.
|
On September 14 2013 04:03 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +You need to stop with the God-complex you have going on about America's place in the world. Thank you for that. There still are sane americans out there. I thought i would have a stroke when i saw that guy writing something about the US being the leading intellectual and scientific powerhouse for the last 100 years or something. Patriotism is a good thing (i actually believe that) - but if it turns into blind obsession, which for alot of americans that seem to be the case, it's dangerous. And i mean, actually dangerous. On topic: since there's not really that much in german news, some evidence or still just hearsay alá "we totally have evidence but don't show it because fuck you"?
Patriotism is dangerous when you have a military with 50% of the worlds military budget and an grossly uneducated public on the topic of foreign affairs.
Patriotism in the US is so out of control that IF our government went rogue, how could we tell?
People are so brainwashed here that its scary even speaking out against the government on message boards, to do it in public would be actually dangerous.
My fear is that we've (the US government) already become the "bad" guys.... just so few people see it and those that do are shut down.
If we were the "bad" guys, how would it show?
We'd see a very dumbed down media (check)
A highly distracted population (check)
A huge military (check)
Giant uncontrolled convert organizations (check)
Military involvement all over the world all the time (check)
Drones (check)
Torture (check_
Detentions without trials (check)
All this made possible by "Patriotism". I think its very dangerous in our case.
We trashed the entire US constitution in an effort to be patriotic to the current administration over the past 12 years.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly?
On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo.
On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus
|
On September 14 2013 04:22 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:03 m4inbrain wrote:You need to stop with the God-complex you have going on about America's place in the world. Thank you for that. There still are sane americans out there. I thought i would have a stroke when i saw that guy writing something about the US being the leading intellectual and scientific powerhouse for the last 100 years or something. Patriotism is a good thing (i actually believe that) - but if it turns into blind obsession, which for alot of americans that seem to be the case, it's dangerous. And i mean, actually dangerous. On topic: since there's not really that much in german news, some evidence or still just hearsay alá "we totally have evidence but don't show it because fuck you"? People are so brainwashed here that its scary even speaking out against the government on message boards, to do it in public would be actually dangerous.
I think you're just suffering from paranoia. Shitting on the government is a national pastime.
|
On September 14 2013 04:26 cem61 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 04:19 D10 wrote:On September 14 2013 04:09 cem61 wrote:On September 14 2013 03:35 D10 wrote:
I dont have any proof, but I strongly suspect that Israel and american intelligence is behind the attacks.
Assad was winning the war with russian support, he didnt need to kill people with chemical weapons because normal weapons were working just fine, he was winning the war.
Syria is right next door to israel, with a simple CIA-Mossad joint operation, I believe they got within Assads army infrastructure long enough to launch the chemical weapons and try to provoke international intervention.
Few countries have been as quiet as Israel in this mess, I believe 90% of the blame for us getting to this point lies on them.
At least we still have heros like Puttin in the world championing for peace.
We created the UN for a reason, the US ignoring the UN just because its opinion is not unanimous makes the whole planet skeptical of democracy.
Also, where was all this american moral superiority and exceptionalism in the many genocides that happened over africa, and still happen (such as in DR Congo, where the UN is sending its FIRST military takeover mission).
At the end of the day, the US makes the UN weak because its constantly ignoring whatever people decide like they are better. Dude the Propaganda Assad is winning is just a lie look at the last events. Such as the arrival of a US fleet and the obvious recent support the rebels got ? What last events are you talking about exacly? On 26 August, rebel forces took over the village of Khanasir in Aleppo governorate. The strategic village was the government's last supply route for the contested city of Aleppo. On 8 September, rebels led by al-Nusra Front captured the Christian town of Maaloula, 43 km north of Damascus
Afaik the rebels already lost the christian village
|
Usa been the only super power for about 25 years. What we see now is the beginning of the end of the usa hegemony. Russia is back on the map and china,s position is growing stronger all the time. This one world government we all are hoping for is as far away as it was in the cold war. No more peace and prosperity for everyone, back to making monney from lots of local conflicts wich will pop up in the coming decades. Apearently its the only game we know how to play well.
I dont see obama go into syria annymore, even though he should. The risk seems just to high and every week waiting makes the influence other countrys have bigger.
Backing off now is a huge failure wich will only gives the opponents of the usa more courage to stand up and test the waters. Going through is equally impossible atm it seems, its a loose loose situation for the usa.
Maybe obama should have pushed it earlier, in his first term. Though in that case he would never have gotten a 2nd term. Republican president next but then america will be relativly even weaker then its now.
Tappering soon to be halted as well and then we can see how great and flexible the usa economy realy is. They are not competitive, consume more then they produce. They run a huge trade deficit wich is only possible due to the control over saudi arabia+nabours oil. Other countrys will try expand their influence in the middle east with new confidence.
So ya,Obama should push through with syria and accept that his presidency will be ruined.
Its now or never for the usa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
