|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess.
The reason they can't do nothing is because they set the red line, they pounced and created a media storm when word of this attack got out. They forced their own hand.
If Obama can get away with spying on everyone everywhere, I'm pretty sure he can handle the outrage over NOT bombing Syria.
IMHO its pure propaganda that the US is reluctantly getting involved. Their actions are telling me that they are chomping at the bit looking for a reason to get more involved.
|
On August 29 2013 06:44 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. The reason they can't do nothing is because they set the red line, they pounced and created a media storm when word of this attack got out. They forced their own hand. If Obama can get away with spying on everyone everywhere, I'm pretty sure he can handle the outrage over NOT bombing Syria. IMHO its pure propaganda that the US is reluctantly getting involved.
Obama and the Dems. probably don't want another Iraq on their hands. We saw what it did to the Republicans under Bush. They will definitely want to make the more popular decision in this regard, be it action or inaction.
|
|
|
On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess.
It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense.
It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses.
|
On August 29 2013 06:44 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. The reason they can't do nothing is because they set the red line, they pounced and created a media storm when word of this attack got out. They forced their own hand. If Obama can get away with spying on everyone everywhere, I'm pretty sure he can handle the outrage over NOT bombing Syria. IMHO its pure propaganda that the US is reluctantly getting involved. Their actions are telling me that they are chomping at the bit looking for a reason to get more involved.
I think the US wanted to not get involved. As far as I have seen in newspapers and some graphs here the amount of oil and gas is relatively quite low. (maybe I'm wrong here) Also, call me a cynic here, Assad was winning so there was a good chance that the islamists in the rebel forces wouldn't get to power nor get access to heavy weaponry.
Also the spying thing was only discovered after it was done. So it couldn't be changed anymore, and the only people who could really do anything were the Congress and stuff.
On the other hand, he has to do something here because he has to keep some shreds of reliability with both his allies (NATO, EU) and he has to make sure that his enemies (Iran, Russia?) know that eventually he will do something. And missile strikes are the best he can afford right now.
Don't get me wrong here, I personally think that US and NATO should stay as far away from Syria as possible, but with what Obama has said and his reputation from previous actions and non-actions he has no other option.
EDIT:
On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:
It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense.
It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses.
I fully agree with you on the second part, but how does making the best out of a bad situation not make sense?
|
On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses.
Dude you all are so funny. can you explain me what is a islamic state something like saudi arabia ?
i will tell you what the problem is .Usa dont want democraty in Syria (an electected gouverment),which would support the interests of the poeople in Syria and not some clans who work for pro West or pro East(Iran, Russia).
|
|
|
On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses.
How does the US/UK not want Assad to lose? Taking down Assad is taking down one of Iran's main allies, so as long as whatever is in his place isn't pro-Iran, it seems to me they would be fine with it.
|
On August 29 2013 07:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 07:00 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses. Dude you all are so funny. can you explain me what is a islamic state something like saudi arabia ? i will tell you what the problem is .Usa dont want democraty in Syria (an electected gouverment),which would support the interests of the poeople in Syria and not some clans who work for pro West or pro East(Iran, Russia). I think this shows anti USA bias. It seems "cool" to talk about america in some evil light where they are trying to control the worlds oil and so on. There are alot of things USA has done that aren't great but one thing they pride themselves on and you can't sensibly argue against is that they support democracy. 100% USA would support a fully democratic nation. It's america's belief that they are correct and the every free people would agree with them and there system. Sure it could be arrogance but it will also cause them to support that system.
ok explain me this pls.why the Usa is scared about an "Islamic" state but at the same time best firends with Saudi Arabia and his crew who are nr.1 supporter of Al qaida.
|
On August 29 2013 05:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:07 Vivax wrote:
UN: "If Syria uses gas we will intervene"
Assad: "No gas here boys"
UN: "Errr.."
-A few months later-
Assad: "Better use that gas that will give everyone and their mother a reason to attack me even though the rebels are already failing on the conventional field, and then let UN inspectors in to confirm it"
You: "Yea right, like you'd be so stupid"
UN: "U used gas n00b"
Newspapers: "You heard what the UN said? Syria used gas! Gogogog"
If I look at some newspaper comments it's like everybody around here doesn't believe the shit the media write any more.
It would be so illogical from Syria to use chemical weapons. Yeah these arguments that it would be so illogical for Syria to use chemical weapons so they wouldn't aren't logical in and of themselves. They take the perspective of a purportedly rational and moderate Westerner who thinks that if he were in Assad's position, of course he wouldn't use WMD because he *knows* it would be the end of him as the US and allied militaries would, in his mind, undoubtedly fall on him like a ton of bricks. Unfortunately for this argument, heads of state are not the legal construct of a "reasonable person," they are living, breathing human beings. Chemical weapons were already used numerous times in the last year and absolutely nothing was done by the West about it. So why would Assad think that NATO would go all-out regime change on him if he used some more? He has Russia in his corner and China kinda-sorta in his corner as well. The United States in the presidency of Barack Obama has an international reputation for being weak and vacillating. Our threats aren't believed. It's perfectly logical to use chemical weapons when you think that the West in general and the US specifically is too pussy to come after you and go for the kill. Looks like that has been a very accurate assessment on the part of Assad. Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 05:13 Mora wrote:On August 29 2013 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:42 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:
[quote]
That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic?
To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke.
Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world.
I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick.
In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly.
EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. Well if you have anything like actual facts to back you up, let us know please. The fact is we're going to get involved in Syria. The question is why. Why do you think? Because after two and a half years of not getting openly involved, the pressure to do so has become too much to resist? Because chemical weapons use on such a scale is serious enough that something does have to be done about it? Moral considerations do play a large and influential role in decision-making at times, believe it or not. The whole UN-anchored international system created after WW2 was a reaction to the immorality and horror of the war, slaughter and destruction on a scale not seen since the Huns invaded Europe 1500 years before. The world and why things happen in it are a lot more complicated than the simplistic Manicheanism that pervades this forum and internet political discussions in general. On August 29 2013 04:49 Mora wrote:On August 29 2013 04:05 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 04:01 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 29 2013 04:00 dsousa wrote:On August 29 2013 03:55 Sub40APM wrote:On August 29 2013 03:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 29 2013 03:37 DeepElemBlues wrote:[quote] http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/29/former-conspiracy-theorist-when-they-say-‘illuminati’-or-‘reptiles’-they-mean-jews/http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/youre_not_paranoid_if_its_true.htmlNo, the whole of it is anti-Semitic, and if you don't understand why, then you don't know enough about the origin and evolution of "NWO" "central bank" conspiracy theories, probably because you have not had enough exposure to the people who advocate such theories. Lucky you. What they mean when they say "NWO" is "Jews." What they mean when they say "central banks" is "Jews." What they mean when they rant about fiat currency or fractional reserve banking is "Jewish usurers." The mind does reel when people act like taking the prime anti-Semitic conspiracy theory of the last 200 years and replacing the word "Jews" with "NWO" means that it is no longer anti-Semitic. You're being taken for a ride nunez, how can you not notice the swastika hood ornament? [quote] What world do you live in? Have you even read any of this thread at all? Around half the posters here dismiss anything anti-Assad because it's "US" or "UK" or "Israeli" and obviously lies because imperialism blah blah blah, while propaganda coming out of the Kremlin basement is linked as if it were holy writ. That kind of logic is terrible. So no-one is allowed to engage in this kind of conspiracy theorizing without being anti-semitic? To be honest i usually completely ignore most allegations of anti-semitism because i have seen it used so recklessly so many times that the whole thing is now just a total joke. Joseph Campbell, the world renowned mythologist, was subject to these allegations of anti-semitism because some jews didn't like him saying that their God was a myth. These allegations were delivered through the medium of newspaper articles all over the world. I'm not anti-semitic, but anyone who levels that accusation without real proof and personal experience is total dick. In other words, its an easy, lazy way to dismiss something without having to have a brain cell to be able to do it properly. EDIT: obviously allegations of anti-semitism aren't always this kind of lazy thinking, but when applied to huge groups of people and whole ways of thinking then they usually are. I sometimes dont understand people. "Someone I respect was being labeled anti-Semitic, therefore it is always wrong to label anyone anti-Semitic and I wont examine the actual claims of anti-Semitism here because its obviously wrong." Claiming that Syria is under attack because the Rothschild family of bankers want the Syrian bank to become 'owned by them' instead of 'owned by the Syrian state' is an anti-Semitic trope and has been one for a hundred years or so. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rothschilds_(film). I actually agree with you, if you focus on the fact that its a "Rothchilds" owned central bank, howvever, if you look at from purely a banking perspective it is still relevant. To what degree the Rothchilds are involved in central banking I have no idea. But currencies and the IMF are big deals and they help maintain a US dollar domination of the worlds financial system. That is a very big deal. Petrodollars are a big deal and something that the beneficiaries would surely fight for. Perhaps when she talks about the Rothchilds I dismiss it too quickly and you focus on it too much. I though she made 8 strong points, but perhaps you are not wrong in saying the first could be construed as anti-semitic. I didn't immediately see it that way, but I could see how someone would. What did you think of her other 7 points? The 7 other points are all out of the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, if she doesn't think it's the Jews she's a useful idiot for anti-Semites, if she does, she's an anti-Semite herself. Sounds like a wonderful PRISM from which to view the world. I can't help but agree with you. Antisemitism is an intention. If you have no ill-will towards Jewish people, then you aren't an anti-semite. Money controls the world and politics. Obviously? Whether the people who control the money are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Having this perspective does not infer that I dislike Jews. If other people share this perspective, and also happen to be antisemitic, any correlation between the two is a false one. Drawing a correlation between the two is a distraction from the critical issues caused when a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world. We sure have a lot of pretzel-twisting to justify an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory here today. Banalities like "money controls the world and politics" does not dissipate the anti-Semitic core of the conspiracy theory that "a group of people without regulation or examination determine the fate of the entire world." No such charge has been made against any other group of people in history. You don't get to take "Jews secretly run the world and cause all wars and enslave societies through central banking," take out the word "Jews" and replace it with "the NWO" or "a group of people" and act like you have separated the theory from the anti-Semitism. Having that perspective infers that you are a "useful idiot" as Lenin meant it. Your argument is a deliberate distraction from the anti-Semitic origin and inherently anti-Semitic nature of the "NWO / central bank" conspiracy theory. Bullshit made up to make people hate Jews is no longer bullshit if we take the Jews out of the equation. It's still bullshit. Are we really to believe that anti-Semites in 19th century Europe stumbled upon THE TROOF and managed to describe with great accuracy the CONSPIRAZEE running the world, but then erred in attributing it to the Jews? Yeah that makes sense. We've got a return to "Fake but accurate" going on here. See, it doesn't matter that the conspiracy theory was created as a deliberate lie to inflame Jew-hatred. It's still accurate, just that Jew part is wrong because I'm never going to get anywhere if I keep the Jew-hating parts. So I'll drop those and then try to say with a straight face that my bullshit theory that was created out of whole cloth to make people hate Jews is not bullshit, it's accurate, the origins and motivations behind it are meaningless, despite being created solely for the purpose of Jew-hatred, the conspiracy theory is still accurate and not necessarily anti-Semitic, just take the blame-the-Jews part out. Whatever man, if you want to fool yourself, that's up to you. Just don't expect too many others to be similarly hoodwinked. No. You are so blinded by your desire to pigeon-hole me into this position that you can't see what I am attempting to say. My thoughts are completely unrelated to NWO conspiracies or Jews. I should not have participated in this thread, as I did not intend in fighting a battle that you are set on involving my thoughts in. I'm speaking to this: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_b_glattfelder_who_controls_the_world.htmlAgain, these critical issues transcend nationality, race, and religion. The Jews just aren't that important. I saw what you were attempting to say, it was bullshit. Now you are attempting to say something similar but vitally different, and it is still mostly bullshit. Just less rank bullshit. Glattfelder oversimplifies, as is usual for someone trying to explain something as ridiculous as "who controls the world." Ownership networks of shareholder relations show that a small cabal controls the world? I notice that Glattfelder neglected to mention what is meant by "control." I notice he neglected to mention how these ownership networks rule the world in practice. It's just "they're interconnected, we modeled their network, they control the world." Where is the coordination between the nodes? Where is the actual evidence of a highly interconnected network with a core that is controlling the actions of the network? Where is the evidence of an actual organization? I am not seeing any evidence of anything like "control of the world" in this talk. Just evidence that a relatively small number of shareholders own a majority of shares in "trans-national corporations," and of course the assumption that "TNCs" run the world is implicit and not questioned or given any skepticism at all. This is of course a grossly inaccurate oversimplification of the world, but hey, he's giving a TED talk, and we know all those technocrats at TED are visionary geniuses who probably can't be wrong! Because technocrats base their beliefs on science.
You are too busy being right and too angry about being right to be worth talking to. Your position might be both valid and interesting... but you're ornery. You are not pleasant to talk to.
I hope your righteousness brings you happiness. You are not company many would want to keep.
|
On August 29 2013 07:08 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses. How does the US/UK not want Assad to lose? Taking down Assad is taking down one of Iran's main allies, so as long as whatever is in his place isn't pro-Iran, it seems to me they would be fine with it.
Also it would strengthen US ally Isreal in this region and getting more controll over libanon(Hezbollah) while there´s even a chance that flight routes for future interventions could be opened over syria so that iran could be sniped when they try again to construct nuclear plants.
|
|
|
On August 29 2013 07:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 07:00 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses. Dude you all are so funny. can you explain me what is a islamic state something like saudi arabia ? i will tell you what the problem is .Usa dont want democraty in Syria (an electected gouverment),which would support the interests of the poeople in Syria and not some clans who work for pro West or pro East(Iran, Russia). I think this shows anti USA bias. It seems "cool" to talk about america in some evil light where they are trying to control the worlds oil and so on. There are alot of things USA has done that aren't great but one thing they pride themselves on and you can't sensibly argue against is that they support democracy. 100% USA would support a fully democratic nation. It's america's belief that they are correct and the every free people would agree with them and there system. Sure it could be arrogance but it will also cause them to support that system.
somehow it feels like you're using the word 'democracy' where some other word should be.
|
On August 29 2013 07:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 07:14 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 07:06 JimmiC wrote:On August 29 2013 07:00 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses. Dude you all are so funny. can you explain me what is a islamic state something like saudi arabia ? i will tell you what the problem is .Usa dont want democraty in Syria (an electected gouverment),which would support the interests of the poeople in Syria and not some clans who work for pro West or pro East(Iran, Russia). I think this shows anti USA bias. It seems "cool" to talk about america in some evil light where they are trying to control the worlds oil and so on. There are alot of things USA has done that aren't great but one thing they pride themselves on and you can't sensibly argue against is that they support democracy. 100% USA would support a fully democratic nation. It's america's belief that they are correct and the every free people would agree with them and there system. Sure it could be arrogance but it will also cause them to support that system. ok explain me this pls.why the Usa is scared about an "Islamic" state but at the same time best firends with Saudi Arabia and his crew who are nr.1 supporter of Al qaida. I didn't say they are scared of a islamic state. I said they would support a democracy. Esspecially a true democracy that allowed everyone to vote, no matter religon, race, gender and so on. The religon is fairly irrelevent there are a ton of muslims in the USA. What they don't like is the muslim extremists that restrict the rights of certain groups of people. There are a lot of pro USA people that are biased (way to patriotic, usa da best rhetoric). But the more I read global forums there are a lot more people with huge anti USA bias's that are at least as inaccurate is not worse.
That's quite a naive look. USA isn't interested in democracy, they are interested in leaders who would serve their interest. They showed that time and time again. All that speech about democracy, human rights and equality is only to appease the masses. In reality USA is much happier with a dictatorship,even brutal one, as long as they dance the way USA wants
|
|
|
|
|
On August 29 2013 07:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2013 07:14 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 07:06 JimmiC wrote:On August 29 2013 07:00 cem61 wrote:On August 29 2013 06:54 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote:On August 29 2013 06:16 overt wrote:On August 29 2013 05:45 Nachtwind wrote:
Related: You won´t stop this civil war though through a few tomahawk missles. Only if you would get all partys on one table. But that would be a problem with the US and the Iran-Threat-Reduction-Act if the US gets involved in the situation because iran would also be on this table. The proposed plan of firing cruise missiles doesn't make a ton of sense to me either. I'm assuming it's what Washington, London, and Paris wish to do as it's both cheap and sends a message that the US and her allies will get involved if you use chemical weaponry. The problem is that it only really strengthens Russia's position, it won't cause the rebels to defeat Assad, and it further de-stabilizes the country allowing more Wahabi groups to operate in Syria. In my opinion it makes a ton of sense. Simply said it's the best of all the bad options the US has. They can't do nothing. They can't go with heavy ground troops action because that would make the current US government really unpopular and (correct me if I'm wrong here) guarantee a Republican as the next president. So then it's just missiles and maybe a no-fly zone left. Which is still weak and won't solve anything, but it's at least something, I guess. It's almost certainly making the best a bad situation but it still doesn't make sense. It's not like the US/UK/France want Assad to lose anyway. He may not be pro-west but neither would an Islamist state which is what would probably happen if the rebels won. Whether Assad retains power or the rebels win the west still loses. Dude you all are so funny. can you explain me what is a islamic state something like saudi arabia ? i will tell you what the problem is .Usa dont want democraty in Syria (an electected gouverment),which would support the interests of the poeople in Syria and not some clans who work for pro West or pro East(Iran, Russia). I think this shows anti USA bias. It seems "cool" to talk about america in some evil light where they are trying to control the worlds oil and so on. There are alot of things USA has done that aren't great but one thing they pride themselves on and you can't sensibly argue against is that they support democracy. 100% USA would support a fully democratic nation. It's america's belief that they are correct and the every free people would agree with them and there system. Sure it could be arrogance but it will also cause them to support that system. ok explain me this pls.why the Usa is scared about an "Islamic" state but at the same time best firends with Saudi Arabia and his crew who are nr.1 supporter of Al qaida. I didn't say they are scared of a islamic state. I said they would support a democracy. Esspecially a true democracy that allowed everyone to vote, no matter religon, race, gender and so on. The religon is fairly irrelevent there are a ton of muslims in the USA. What they don't like is the muslim extremists that restrict the rights of certain groups of people. There are a lot of pro USA people that are biased (way to patriotic, usa da best rhetoric). But the more I read global forums there are a lot more people with huge anti USA bias's that are at least as inaccurate is not worse.
just to be clear Im not anti Usa and Im for an intervention against Assad.What makes me annoying is why they are waiting until chemical weapons being used against civilians.Is it ok to kill civilians with rockets but only bad if you use chemical weaponse.So Im searching for an reason why they have waited so long and thats my conclusion.Now the country is full of extrimists and an normal election is preety much impossible.
|
On August 29 2013 07:28 dsousa wrote:Cruise missiles cost $1.5M each http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)They launched 161 in Libya, at start of Iraq war then launched 700. So we're looking at $200M+ in just cruise missile costs.
Those poor defense companies have to make their money somehow.
|
|
|
Watch Obama live: http://t.co/3qO6EHN7za
So far, toning it down "I have not made a decision on Syria yet". Probably waiting on the parliamentary vote in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
