On August 26 2013 20:56 Yuljan wrote: Militiary intervention would be the worst outcome for the civilians in syria. It may not fit into your narrow minded democracy is the best of all things worldview but dictators provide stability. If assad gets taken down Syria will become a violent mess similar to Iraq. There is no coherent opposition and after Assad loses they will turn upon each other. So why would the western nations invade Syria? Because a war is always a nice distraction from domestic problems.
This isnt even for oil or neo colonalism its a low cost war to boost public opinion. Hollande needs the war because his ratings are plummeting and the UK and the US want to disctract their population from the massive spy programs on their private lives. Hell we dont even need to send any ground personell. Erdogan will gladly send turkish ground troops to further his pan-sunni/ turkish-empire. A no fly zones enforced by the west will be enough to make assad crumble.
If we truly cared about the syrian people we would send full support to assad to end the rebellion and offer a pardon and asylum to any rebels that want to leave the country, but killing people with rockets and drones is cheaper I guess.
The spying shit isn't causing the government any trouble in England. There's much more drama about fracking. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
Well I only have a basic knowledge of the internal situation in your country so I thank you for your correction. Still a "just" war can be a pretty decent popularity booster.
The majority of British people would not see it as a just war.
I cannot give you an exact breakdown of opinions, but I suspect that well over 50% of the population wants us to stay out of Syria. From what I have read, more people are supportive of the rebels than of Assad, but even those who would prefer the rebels to win do not want our country getting involved.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
To the other guy, I wouldn't be chirping anything. And I wouldn't make wide sweeping claims without knowing the other person, if I were you.
I don't need to know you to see your ideological bias. You cannot be on the side of the rebels and the "people" at the same time, the people overwhelmingly support Assad right now, and it's quite obvious the country is better off is he stays in power. There's nothing wrong with supporting Western interests, just stop doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're on the side of the "good guys"
eh by people you mean people in damascus supporting Assad you may be right but the wider population don't or we wouldn't have had this whole revolution in the first place.
Can you prove that? Most of what I have read suggests otherwise.
God, I hope we just stay the fuck out of this. I'm tired of stepping into hornet's nests when all we get as a reward is the rest of world whining at us about shit we didn't even do.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
On August 27 2013 01:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: God, I hope we just stay the fuck out of this. I'm tired of stepping into hornet's nests when all we get as a reward is the rest of world whining at us about shit we didn't even do.
Didn't 9/11/2012 teach us anything?
that sentiment allowed rwanda's genocide. I'm not saying with this that stepping into this may be right.
Al Nusra is not backed by Western Countries, CIA/Nato supporting Al nusra in any way is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, pls get your facts straight, Al Nusra doesn't want anything to do with Western Countries, they are fighting in Syria to make Syria an extreme Islamist country and they have support from Al Qaeda, and a few oil millionaires from Saudi Arabia, so please don't get these bullshit videos here ♥.
Also that other video of the rebels getting hit by an aircraft shows how untrained and with lack of heavy weapons they are, any ground force without some kind of anti air weapon facing an aircraft would disperse or hide/search for cover as much as possible and even less go ahead and show that they have an armed vehicle, that video is testament of their lack of training, and show that they are just civilians in extreme circumstances.
And it is nice to hear that no one was hurt during the attack to the UN vehicles today, i wonder if it was something planned (most likely) or it just happens that the guys that shot the UN vehicles didn't receive the memo of the hold fire towards the UN.
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
It should be obvious from your writing which country had been liberated, but I have no idea. Especially not "liberated", you ought to know it's a very loaded term.
Secondly, Russia is the biggest supporter Assad has, while Hizbollah and Iran send some troops, Russia provides the diplomatic support with its UNSC veto (which it is very vocal about) and the equipment (massive arms supplies to the military) which keep Assad fighting. It cannot be said that Russia has not stepped up. Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict.
We can all agree Russia's commitment to Syria is the biggest deterring factor for western intervention. However their support is mostly diplomatic, stoping outside military intervention, they sold weapons but most of those were from old contracts, they could have really stepped up support by sending serious weapons and provide training to government's forces. Military wise, it's Iran that has their back, not Russia. Iran are the ones providing most weapons, logistics and training beside to the geopolitical power they have (which is honestly not anywhere near Russia's). But Iran have not sent troops, where did you get that from? or do you consider Hezbollah as being sent by Iran? (which is pretty true but they aren't Irani troops).
There were a number of paragraphs about Iranian Revolutionary Guard being sent to Syria. It was a while ago so I picked out the first google hit.
To the other guy, I wouldn't be chirping anything. And I wouldn't make wide sweeping claims without knowing the other person, if I were you.
I don't need to know you to see your ideological bias. You cannot be on the side of the rebels and the "people" at the same time, the people overwhelmingly support Assad right now, and it's quite obvious the country is better off is he stays in power. There's nothing wrong with supporting Western interests, just stop doing mental gymnastics to convince yourself you're on the side of the "good guys"
You should show us polls But I go after my friends from Syria, and they definitely don't support Assad (they don't like the rebels either, but they don't hate all of them).
On another note, you don't know a thing about it - ideologically or otherwise. All I did was say that Russia shouldn't be perceived as the torch-bearer of freedom and justice in the world. They do not deserve it.
No... you very clearly implied it's Russia's fault the war is still going on and they're to blame for the issues.
"Russia is doing a lot, and that "a lot" has lead to this stage of the conflict."
Are you really trying to deny you don't have an ideological bias after what you just posted today? If you're gonna lash out in bitterness don't turn around an hour later and pretend you're not.
Westerners want to join the FFA? FSA vs Al-Nusra/ISIS vs PYD vs Syria/Iran/Hezbollah, what side to chose? or just fight all of them? yay more fighters, more death, more destruction!
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
Wern't you guys Ottoman vassles untill Serbia and Greece helped your ass in the first balkan war?
Yeah, we were vassles (sp?), but about that helping part - thats not what we learn at school
On August 26 2013 21:33 mdb wrote: I think Russia should intervene and end this conflict. USA & UK proved that they can only bring more suffering to other nations in trouble.
And Russia, Soviet-Fucking-Union-Oppressing-dozens-of-countries-Russia, is better. You guys are a joke. You cannot conquer nations, ship their people to gulags, try to suppress their cultures, and kill countless people and then act like you are an international peace keeper. Germany learned this, which is why today, after 60 years and with a completely detached governing style, it's still one of the last countries to support international intervention.
Well, Russia also has liberated a lot of countries - for example mine - twice. Once from the ottomans and once from the nazis. Not to mention that they liberated whole Europe at the cost of 20 million lives. But that has nothing to do with this topic. Its pretty obvious that people of Syria need help. I dont believe that NATO can really help anymore. I think Russia has to step up and solve this conflict.
Wern't you guys Ottoman vassles untill Serbia and Greece helped your ass in the first balkan war?
Yeah, we were vassles (sp?), but about that helping part - thats not what we learn at school
On August 26 2013 02:04 radscorpion9 wrote: Very happy to see the USA and the UK considering taking strong action against Syria. Even though it took awhile, finally the US and its allies may end Assad's brutal dictatorship and the continued massacre of his own population rising up against him. Its sad to see so many people here believing what Assad has been saying because of some pre-existing bias against the US, but thankfully it won't impact the important decisions being made.
Transition to a democratic government will clearly be painful, but I'm glad that we are helping our fellow human beings work towards this end rather than leaving them to a civil war that could continue to terrorize the entire region for a decade or more. This is a very positive development. Its just depressing that I feel like I'm in the minority in this thread now. Everyone has all these conspiracy theories that the US is behind everything
You mean when USA / UK presented false evidence and then invaded Iraq killing many civilians in the process?
I'm not sure how terrorists killing 60%+ of the dead civilians in Iraq (which is of course blamed on the US because if the US is involved all responsibility automatically devolves upon Washington) gives Bashar al-Assad a free pass to slaughter Syrian civilians with or without poison gas.
Seeing as Iraq had hardly any problem with terrorism before (and Saddam wasn't massacring civilians left and right, either), and now it turned into a terrorism hellhole, full of sectarian violence, I don't see how this can't be blamed entirely on the USA. They turned a relatively stable dictatorship into a volatile war zone...
Also, don't forget about the casualties of the US sanctions. Namely, 100-500 thousand children dying from starvation, disease or such since 1990. And I seriously doubt that terrorists attacks consitute 60% of death. Americans are known to cover up their death toll - like with drone strikes in Pakistan, where they changed the definition of "enemy combatant" (or whatever they called them, precisely) in order to significantly lower the civilian death count.
I like how relatively stable dictatorship turns into 100,000-150,000 thousand children dying from starvation and death, that is clearly stability right there. Those people died because Saddam killed them. He took Oil-for-Food money and spent it on palaces. Iraqi Arab malnutrition and disease was comparable to somewhere like the Congo. Iraqi Kurdistan had control over its own portion of the Oil-for-Food money and Iraqi Kurd malnutrition and disease were comparable to Southern Europe (i.e. little if any people dying from malnutrition and treatable disease). If you don't have anything better than assertions about "what Americans are known to [do]" then I will be glad to provide something more:
The majority of civilian deaths during the first year (at least 55%) were directly caused by US/Coalition forces, who were reported as directly causing around 7% of all deaths in the subsequent period until their formal withdrawal on 31st December 2011.
So I'm sorry, I was wrong. US didn't kill 40% of the dead civilians in Iraq, more like 10%.
If you can't see how people who put children into cars to get them past checkpoints and then blew the cars up with the children still inside are responsible for their own actions, then you don't possess the capacity for moral reasoning necessary to have a credible opinion. Yeah America is responsible for the car bombs it was trying to stop. People who sent 2 tons of explosives in the back of a truck to the front of a mosque and blew it up, that's America's responsibility entirely. I strongly disagree with that kind of nonsense.
All of which has jack to do with Syria. If people are willing to allow Bashar al-Assad to go on a course that will end up with more Syrians killed in 3-4 years than Iraqis were killed in Iraq in 10 years because they're still lying about the US and raging against the US, there is a serious problem with their character. You can't even bother to actually investigate whether or not what you're saying is true, and it's manifestly obvious that you proudly hold an unfair standard because of your hatred for the US. Here again we see the US being totally trashed and it's bullshit once again. And not a negative word spoken about the man who is deliberately massacring innocent civilians, of course, it's far more important to let the world know for the 8000th time how awful the United States is. I'm sure it's very comforting to the people in Syria to know how much you want to protect them from those destructive Americans (who haven't destroyed anything in Syria yet) while their own Syrian government turns their neighborhoods into rubble.
United Nations chemical weapons investigators reached their destination on the outskirts of Damascus Monday, hours after being fired on as they first attempted to enter the site of Wednesday's alleged gas attack.
A Syrian doctor told Reuters from the town of Moadamiya that investigators from the U.N. had crossed the front line from the center of the capital, which remains under the control of President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
"We are in the Rawda Mosque, and they are meeting with the wounded. Our medics and the inspectors are talking to the patients and taking samples from the victims now," he said.
Another opposition activist said a large crowd of people eager to air their grievances to the U.N. team was growing. There was also a plan for the experts to take samples from corpses.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Monday that the U.S. has additional information about the alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.
Kerry said in a press conference that the number of victims of the attack on Wednesday, the reported symptoms and the accounts of humanitarian organizations strongly indicate that chemical weapons were used in Syria.
Kerry added that the U.S. believes the regime of president Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the attack, and that the Syrian government's decision to grant U.S. investigators access to the site of the attack came "too late to be credible."
5 days and too late to be credible... how long did it take for the 9/11 commission to be set up again?
i believe it should be "to grant UN investigators access to the site" in your quote, not U.S., stealth.
article 2 in un charter:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
so bad manner.
discrediting the un investigators potential findings before they've even got a chance to do their job...
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
so bad manner.
discrediting the un investigators potential findings before they've even got a chance to do their job...
I don't really see the relevance of the time it took to set up the 9/11 commission care to explain?
and on how much days is too larte depends on how long they're able to trace who actually used the chemical weapons. Maybe it needs to be done in a certain amount of time or your chances of finding out will be drastically reduced. That time limit could be less than 5 days I don't know though but maybe someone else here does?
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
so bad manner.
discrediting the un investigators potential findings before they've even got a chance to do their job...
EPT
But I go after my friends from Syria, and they definitely don't support Assad (they don't like the rebels either, but they don't hate all of them). 
