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).
Saudi Arabia likes money a lot more than they like religion. They play ball with the west, it's unlikely that Syrian rebels would.
Additionally the US urged Syria to adopt democracy at the start of the civil war. We care about spreading democracy simply because democracies are more likely to work with us than anti-west dictators.
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.
De-stabilizing Syria is bad. Power vacuums are bad. Zero leadership in Syria is bad. If the US wanted the rebels to win we would've said so. Instead Obama has made his position clear and has said multiple times that we want to keep the Assad regime intact. You don't make statements like that if you want the rebels to succeed, period. You bolster them with hope and praise (much like what we did during the Iranian riots last election).
The rebels are not an allied front. If Assad's regime fell it wouldn't be the end of the civil war it'd be like a new chapter of it.
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.
Many people feel this why is chemicals worse thing. And I agree. The best arguement I have heard is that they needed to make rules and after ww1 and all the suffering most nations were willing to agree to this as a rule. No one was going to agree to no conventional weapons in war.
It's also the lack of precision and indiscriminent nature of chemical weapons. Yes there are innocents killed with conventional weapons. But if everyone was using the chemical weapons those numbers would go way up. Not to mention the environmental damage. Also the whole slipery slope arguement. If the world allows chemical weapons, how about biological, how about nuclear?
I think the obvious answer is all weapons and killing is bad, it was agreed that chemical is worse then conventional. And isn't it better to have more weapons not allowed then allowed? Since we all know they can't make every weapon illeagle in war.
Yes of course.Imagine the "world police" had said "Assad we all know you are an dictator so make an election with all the Syrian poeple otherwise we have to force you" 2 years ago. Thats the thing what i dont understand why they didnt make this statement after 4 thousands people died in non violent protests.
They launched 161 in Libya, at start of Iraq war then launched 700.
So we're looking at $200M+ in just cruise missile costs.
They're actually relatively cheap for what they can do, and take into account of minimizing the risk for the boots. The cost for the state is lot higher if you lose a soldier.
dsousa wrote:They remove Iran's greatest ally and a threat to Israel. They reduce Russia's presence, Russia has a huge navy base in Syria.
Among other reasons -+ Show Spoiler +
There are good reasons why the US is so motivated in this case as opposed to dozens of other atrocities that occur each year.
These are not important objectives to the American people, but they are clearly important to the powers that be.
I don't know what exactly what you're thinking, but Russia is certainly not supporting Assad for humanitarian reasons. Obviously, they have a naval base there which you pointed out yourself. They loaned money to Syria, which the Assad regime owes them and the FSA is unlikely to pay back if they win. Russia and Syria often vote (along with China and other "non-western" powers) against the West in UN meetings. Losing Syria means losing more international political power. (all of this has been stated at some point in the thread, which is why there's no source. The only exception is the voting point, but I doubt you or anyone will find that controversial.)
Given this, how can you bastardize the US for not acting for humanitarian reasons, and simultaneously call Russia the "voice of reason" for supporting "Syrian stability" under a dictatorship. Nevermind this whole uprising began because Assad started shooting at citizens quell protests of his own regime, which is far from stability.
I wouldn't normally call someone out on bias because arguments should stand for themselves, and a person's sources should establish their credibility anyway; yelling "Bias!" is a terrible to way to argue. But if you're going to sling mud, then you have to explain why your mud is better than my mud in order to win the argument.
dsousa wrote:Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Here is an impartial depleted Uranium bomb they dropped on Syria in May
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
I would expect someone who makes this claims to be particularly careful with his own facts. But this thread has established a) the bomb had nothing to do with uranium (in other words, that video was a shitty juxtaposition made to fool people), and b) uranium depleted bullets aren't any more harmful than regular bullets (they're used because they're heavier...), and thus there's no international regulations against them (for good reason).
Haven't you spent the entire thread pretty much calling us ignorant sheep for believing "propaganda?" What do you think this post was? Misleading, not based in fact, and meant to win people over with "shock" and "emotional ploys." Really?
dsousa wrote:You see what anyone who has alternate opinions is dealing with here. Half the people will defend the US blindly because of patriotism and another large group will call you racist or anti-semitic if you question anything that Israel does.
This isn't an argument. This is an ad hominem.
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.
They've constructed a box for you and the mindless help maintain its borders.
What actions are telling you they're "chomping at the bit to get involved?" Arguments are made through logic or evidence. Not through calling everyone else propaganda-fed sheep over and over again. You have provided nothing of substance still. And I have no reason to believe you still.
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc).
People believe the US in this instance because the US doesn't have an obvious stake in the war. If anything, they have an incentive to deny chemical weapons use by Assad (as they've already done once).
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?
Could you make a more obvious argument from ignorance? You might as well be an ancient alien theorist. Again, noting the lack of real argumentation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that your arguments are textbook hypocritical conspiracy theorist internet arguments. You make bold claims, ask others to prove you wrong, and call everyone who disagrees with you biased (despite the fact that you show a very clear bias against the West in every post). While providing no credible sources, and doing very little substantive argumentation.
And no, I'm not some closed-minded Western sheep. I've read ultra-left anti-West foreign policy books before to consider their arguments, and dismissed them because they've simply never held up to any real scrutiny. So please get over yourself and quit telling me (and the other posters in this thread) that I'm some duped sheeple that's never considered an opinion other than my own. You don't know me. Don't pretend to.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says the U.S. has concluded that the Syrian government carried out a large-scale chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.
Obama says the U.S. has examined evidence and doesn't believe the opposition fighting the Syrian government possessed chemical weapons or the means to deliver them.
Obama says he hasn't made a decision about how the U.S. will respond.
The White House says it's planning a possible military response while seeking support from international partners. But the U.S. has not yet presented concrete proof of Syrian government involvement in the attack.
Some lawmakers are calling for Obama to seek congressional approval for a military action.
dsousa wrote:They remove Iran's greatest ally and a threat to Israel. They reduce Russia's presence, Russia has a huge navy base in Syria.
Among other reasons -+ Show Spoiler +
There are good reasons why the US is so motivated in this case as opposed to dozens of other atrocities that occur each year.
These are not important objectives to the American people, but they are clearly important to the powers that be.
I don't know what exactly what you're thinking, but Russia is certainly not supporting Assad for humanitarian reasons. Obviously, they have a naval base there which you pointed out yourself. They loaned money to Syria, which the Assad regime owes them and the FSA is unlikely to pay back if they win. Russia and Syria often vote (along with China and other "non-western" powers) against the West in UN meetings. Losing Syria means losing more international political power. (all of this has been stated at some point in the thread, which is why there's no source. The only exception is the voting point, but I doubt you or anyone will find that controversial.)
Given this, how can you bastardize the US for not acting for humanitarian reasons, and simultaneously call Russia the "voice of reason" for supporting "Syrian stability" under a dictatorship. Nevermind this whole uprising began because Assad started shooting at citizens quell protests of his own regime, which is far from stability.
I wouldn't normally call someone out on bias because arguments should stand for themselves, and a person's sources should establish their credibility anyway; yelling "Bias!" is a terrible to way to argue. But if you're going to sling mud, then you have to explain why your mud is better than my mud in order to win the argument.
dsousa wrote:Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Here is an impartial depleted Uranium bomb they dropped on Syria in May
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
I would expect someone who makes this claims to be particularly careful with his own facts. But this thread has established a) the bomb had nothing to do with uranium (in other words, that video was a shitty juxtaposition made to fool people), and b) uranium depleted bullets aren't any more harmful than regular bullets (they're used because they're heavier...), and thus there's no international regulations against them (for good reason).
Haven't you spent the entire thread pretty much calling us ignorant sheep for believing "propaganda?" What do you think this post was? Misleading, not based in fact, and meant to win people over with "shock" and "emotional ploys." Really?
dsousa wrote:You see what anyone who has alternate opinions is dealing with here. Half the people will defend the US blindly because of patriotism and another large group will call you racist or anti-semitic if you question anything that Israel does.
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.
They've constructed a box for you and the mindless help maintain its borders.
What actions are telling you they're "chomping at the bit to get involved?" Arguments are made through logic or evidence. Not through calling everyone else propaganda-fed sheep over and over again. You have provided nothing of substance still. And I have no reason to believe you still.
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc).
People believe the US in this instance because the US doesn't have an obvious stake in the war. If anything, they have an incentive to deny chemical weapons use by Assad (as they've already done once).
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?
Could you make a more obvious argument from ignorance? You might as well be an ancient alien theorist. Again, noting the lack of real argumentation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that your arguments are textbook hypocritical conspiracy theorist internet arguments. You make bold claims, ask others to prove you wrong, and call everyone who disagrees with you biased (despite the fact that you show a very clear bias against the West in every post). While providing no credible sources, and doing very little substantive argumentation.
And no, I'm not some closed-minded Western sheep. I've read ultra-left anti-West foreign policy books before to consider their arguments, and dismissed them because they've simply never held up to any real scrutiny. So please get over yourself and quit telling me (and the other posters in this thread) that I'm some duped sheeple that's never considered an opinion other than my own. You don't know me. Don't pretend to.
They're not even waiting for the UN to make a determination. They seem eager because they sent in war ships before the UN sent in a team to investigate. They have fighter jets currently circling over the Syrian border waiting to receive orders to attack.
Sending in war ships, talking about your plan to use missile attacks and declaring you have proof of guilt without offering it seems like "chomping at the bit" to me.
They are going to attack despite not having authorization from the UN.
If they don't attack, I'll be pleasantly surprised and admit I was wrong. Its my opinion that they have been looking for a reason to excuse intervention and now they've found it. That fits my world view.
dsousa wrote:They remove Iran's greatest ally and a threat to Israel. They reduce Russia's presence, Russia has a huge navy base in Syria.
Among other reasons -+ Show Spoiler +
There are good reasons why the US is so motivated in this case as opposed to dozens of other atrocities that occur each year.
These are not important objectives to the American people, but they are clearly important to the powers that be.
I don't know what exactly what you're thinking, but Russia is certainly not supporting Assad for humanitarian reasons. Obviously, they have a naval base there which you pointed out yourself. They loaned money to Syria, which the Assad regime owes them and the FSA is unlikely to pay back if they win. Russia and Syria often vote (along with China and other "non-western" powers) against the West in UN meetings. Losing Syria means losing more international political power. (all of this has been stated at some point in the thread, which is why there's no source. The only exception is the voting point, but I doubt you or anyone will find that controversial.)
Given this, how can you bastardize the US for not acting for humanitarian reasons, and simultaneously call Russia the "voice of reason" for supporting "Syrian stability" under a dictatorship. Nevermind this whole uprising began because Assad started shooting at citizens quell protests of his own regime, which is far from stability.
I wouldn't normally call someone out on bias because arguments should stand for themselves, and a person's sources should establish their credibility anyway; yelling "Bias!" is a terrible to way to argue. But if you're going to sling mud, then you have to explain why your mud is better than my mud in order to win the argument.
dsousa wrote:Well its interesting that both Syria and Iran have said that they will attack Israel in response to any attack on Syria.
Apparently they think Israel has something to do with the situation..... poor innocent Israel, always getting blamed when they are clearly impartial.
Here is an impartial depleted Uranium bomb they dropped on Syria in May
Did the UN approve that? Doesn't depleted Uranium cause all sort of birth defects? Take note of the time delay between the sight and the sound of the explosion and you'll get an idea of its scale.
I would expect someone who makes this claims to be particularly careful with his own facts. But this thread has established a) the bomb had nothing to do with uranium (in other words, that video was a shitty juxtaposition made to fool people), and b) uranium depleted bullets aren't any more harmful than regular bullets (they're used because they're heavier...), and thus there's no international regulations against them (for good reason).
Haven't you spent the entire thread pretty much calling us ignorant sheep for believing "propaganda?" What do you think this post was? Misleading, not based in fact, and meant to win people over with "shock" and "emotional ploys." Really?
dsousa wrote:You see what anyone who has alternate opinions is dealing with here. Half the people will defend the US blindly because of patriotism and another large group will call you racist or anti-semitic if you question anything that Israel does.
This isn't an argument. This is an ad hominem.
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.
They've constructed a box for you and the mindless help maintain its borders.
What actions are telling you they're "chomping at the bit to get involved?" Arguments are made through logic or evidence. Not through calling everyone else propaganda-fed sheep over and over again. You have provided nothing of substance still. And I have no reason to believe you still.
Sorry for being sarcastic, but this is a perfect example of how the story gets tilted. Every counter point can be dismissed as lack of proof, or questionable source, etc..... but when NATO says something they get the benefit of the doubt from the public despite having a serious credibility problem in recent history (NSA, Iraq, etc).
People believe the US in this instance because the US doesn't have an obvious stake in the war. If anything, they have an incentive to deny chemical weapons use by Assad (as they've already done once).
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?
Could you make a more obvious argument from ignorance? You might as well be an ancient alien theorist. Again, noting the lack of real argumentation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that your arguments are textbook hypocritical conspiracy theorist internet arguments. You make bold claims, ask others to prove you wrong, and call everyone who disagrees with you biased (despite the fact that you show a very clear bias against the West in every post). While providing no credible sources, and doing very little substantive argumentation.
And no, I'm not some closed-minded Western sheep. I've read ultra-left anti-West foreign policy books before to consider their arguments, and dismissed them because they've simply never held up to any real scrutiny. So please get over yourself and quit telling me (and the other posters in this thread) that I'm some duped sheeple that's never considered an opinion other than my own. You don't know me. Don't pretend to.
They're not even waiting for the UN to make a determination. They seem eager because they sent in war ships before the UN sent in a team to investigate. They have fighter jets currently circling over the Syrian border waiting to receive orders to attack.
Sending in war ships, talking about your plan to use missile attacks and declaring you have proof of guilt without offering it seems like "chomping at the bit" to me.
They are going to attack despite not having authorization from the UN.
If they don't attack, I'll be pleasantly surprised and admit I was wrong. Its my opinion that they have been looking for a reason to excuse intervention and now they've found it. That fits my world view.
It's been noted you ignored most of my post, but I'll respond anyway.
You're misusing terms. U.S. Navy warships are permanently stationed in the area already. It's because the U.S. essentially subsidizes half the world's defense (I don't necessarily agree with this, but it is what it is). If the ships are already in the area, you're going to move them where they might be used. Nobody is denying there's the possibility of military action. But this doesn't mean they're "chomping at the bit to attack." It's called not having your ships in useless locations when you might actually have use for them somewhere else. This is hardly "sending them in" in any sort of meaningful sense.
Source for the fighter jets? I haven't heard about that.
The U.S. has stated it doesn't plan to take military action without presenting it's supposed proof first. If you had read about this before you formed an opinion and made assumptions based on your worldview, you would know.
And of course they're most likely going to attack without authorization from the UN. Russia will veto any action against Assad because they're allies of the regime. But when UN authorization is based on non-vetoes from self-interested parties, it loses all of its force as any sort of moral court.
The point is you have no evidence that the U.S. is acting on ulterior motives, and that your claim that the U.S. was waiting for the opportunity to get involved is outright contradicted by the fact that the U.S. resisted attempts to get involved last time allegations of chemical weapons surfaced, even when France and Britain claimed to have proof (which turned out to be false) that Assad used them. If the U.S. truly wanted to get involved, they would have jumped at the opportunity to do so with France and Britain months ago instead of waiting to conduct their own investigation and ultimately deciding to stay out.
Unless that was all a setup for the U.S. government's grand plan to step on tiny little Syria.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says the U.S. has concluded that the Syrian government carried out a large-scale chemical weapons attack against civilians last week.
Obama says the U.S. has examined evidence and doesn't believe the opposition fighting the Syrian government possessed chemical weapons or the means to deliver them.
Obama says he hasn't made a decision about how the U.S. will respond.
The White House says it's planning a possible military response while seeking support from international partners. But the U.S. has not yet presented concrete proof of Syrian government involvement in the attack.
Some lawmakers are calling for Obama to seek congressional approval for a military action.
And this is how i know that USA doesn't have actual proofs to back up the invasion, chemical weapons can be delivered in almost ANY way, from a simple guy that has a car and a small box with explosives to detonate a bottle with the chemicals inside so it can be sprayed into the atmosphere and then get the fuck out with the car, or with a simple pipe rocket like the ones that are made in the Gaza strip (this is the way that the chemicals where delivered actually, with rockets), so this statement proves it for me, this invasion doesn't have a solid backing.
Also Overt said the most worrying thing that could happen is that USA after shooting their few million tons of DU into syria just backs out without actually helping the rebels to rebuild the country and help them to avoid Al Nusra get into power, what is happening now could become a very good copy of what happened in Afghanistan after the USSR invasion, where after the big danger had passed the tribes threw into one another, and that was increased by the fact that Afghanistan's infrastructure was obliterated which created hatred towards those that had used them to their own ends (USA) and then abandoned when they needed help to rebuild their country, and that situation is what in big part helped the forming of Al Qaeda so the Afghanistan population could rebuild the country while building even more hate towards Western countries because of how they where almost abandoned when they needed help. The point that i'm trying to make is that if USA and allies (UN) doesn't help the Syrian people in a considerable way, there will be others that will (Iran, Al Qaeda, Russia, etc, etc, etc) and this war will have made nothing but to increase the fanaticism of hate that a big chunk of the middle east has towards USA (and with good reason tho).
So what USA/NATO has to do to avoid Syria becoming a shitfest? after helping with the war, then they have to help to rebuild Syria, otherwise the country will become a Russian roulette, if they do help and rebuild Syria and educate the citizens to become good westerners then there's not much to fear, but if they don't then Al Qaeda will take the place that the extra USA/NATO aid would have taken, and the Syrian population will be ever grateful of what Al Qaeda/Iran did for them helping them in this dire hour.
And what will happen? i guess something in between, USA/NATO can't spare the bucks to Aid Syria in a reasonable fashion, and Israel would oppose to it, no matter the pressure USA/NATO did to them. USA is not that stupid, not anymore (Not helping Afghanistan back then was pretty stupid) so they will do the best they can to help the "right" rebels to win the war now and the possible sectarian violence that may come after that, but USA/NATO will not be able to help with the amount needed, because of internal reasons (population has become stupid), so they way i see it, is that Syria will not become a big shit fest, just a small one, or some kind of really small shit party (what can i say, i have faith that USA will not fall in the same hole twice)
CAIRO — The leaders of the Arab world on Tuesday blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people last week, but declined to back a retaliatory military strike, leaving President Obama without the broad regional support he had for his last military intervention in the Middle East, in Libya in 2011.
While the Obama administration has robust European backing and more muted Arab support for a strike on Syria, the position of the Arab League and the unlikelihood of securing authorization from the United Nations Security Council complicate the legal and diplomatic case for the White House.
The White House said Tuesday that there was “no doubt” that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack — an assessment shared by Britain, France and other allies — but it has yet to make clear if it has any intelligence directly linking Mr. Assad to the attack. The administration said it planned to provide intelligence on the attack later this week.
As Mr. Obama sought to shore up international support for military action, telephoning Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, administration officials said they did not regard the lack of an imprimatur from the Security Council or the Arab League as insurmountable hurdles, given the carnage last week.
On August 29 2013 09:53 Livelovedie wrote: Al Qaeda and Iran are on different sides >.<
Yep. but both have the resources to help rebuild Syria and their reasons to do so, and that is the point, not that they are allies or anything close to that. Sorry if i was misleading.
(Reuters) - Syria asked the United Nations on Wednesday to order chemical experts in Damascus to investigate three rebel attacks in which he said Syrian troops "inhaled poisonous gas," while Britain pushed for the Security Council to act on the crisis.
The United States dismissed the appeal by Syria's U.N. envoy, saying it had refused chemical experts access to Syria to investigate allegations poisonous gas had been used repeatedly in the country's 2-1/2-year-old civil war.
The United Nations has received at least 14 reports of possible chemical weapons use in Syria. After months of diplomatic wrangling, a team of experts, led by Swedish scientist Ake Sellstrom, arrived in Syria on August 18.
The U.N. team was initially going to look into three incidents, but its priority became investigating an alleged gas attack in the rebel-held suburbs of Damascus last week, which activists say killed hundreds of civilians.
On August 29 2013 06:37 Fildun wrote: [quote] 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.
Many people feel this why is chemicals worse thing. And I agree. The best arguement I have heard is that they needed to make rules and after ww1 and all the suffering most nations were willing to agree to this as a rule. No one was going to agree to no conventional weapons in war.
It's also the lack of precision and indiscriminent nature of chemical weapons. Yes there are innocents killed with conventional weapons. But if everyone was using the chemical weapons those numbers would go way up. Not to mention the environmental damage. Also the whole slipery slope arguement. If the world allows chemical weapons, how about biological, how about nuclear?
I think the obvious answer is all weapons and killing is bad, it was agreed that chemical is worse then conventional. And isn't it better to have more weapons not allowed then allowed? Since we all know they can't make every weapon illeagle in war.
Yes of course.Imagine the "world police" had said "Assad we all know you are an dictator so make an election with all the Syrian poeple otherwise we have to force you" 2 years ago. Thats the thing what i dont understand why they didnt make this statement after 4 thousands people died in non violent protests.
First america didn't decide the chemical weapons were illeagle at war, basically the whole world did after ww1.
second here is the USA position, invade, you assholes stop being the world police and stay out of country. Not invade. you assholes act like th world police but don't come after this guy? who is so bad.
Lose lose
Our only intention is to gain hegemony over other countries, much like we have over Canada and many other countries in the world. Did you so easily forget the US is the greatest empire in history? "World police" is a pretty cute misnomer though, I must agree.
Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say
They're finally going to bring democracy to the region.
Yeah, we're fighting for the sake of feral Islamic fanatics. I find it funny how our "War on Terror" has supported terrorism and Islamic extremists a lot more than it has opposed it. Seriously wtf.
I love how "no boots on the ground" is so political viable here in the States. Drone strikes in foreign countries? No problem as long as there are no boots on the ground. A virus that causes physical damage to an installation? No problem as long as there are no boots on the ground. Airstrikes to support vague entities in a civil war? No problem as long as there are no boots on the ground.
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).
Saudi Arabia likes money a lot more than they like religion. They play ball with the west, it's unlikely that Syrian rebels would.
Additionally the US urged Syria to adopt democracy at the start of the civil war. We care about spreading democracy simply because democracies are more likely to work with us than anti-west dictators.
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.
De-stabilizing Syria is bad. Power vacuums are bad. Zero leadership in Syria is bad. If the US wanted the rebels to win we would've said so. Instead Obama has made his position clear and has said multiple times that we want to keep the Assad regime intact. You don't make statements like that if you want the rebels to succeed, period. You bolster them with hope and praise.
One crucial piece of the emerging case came from Israeli spy services, which provided the Central Intelligence Agency with intelligence from inside an elite special Syrian unit that oversees Mr. Assad’s chemical weapons, Arab diplomats said. The intelligence, which the CIA was able to verify, showed that certain types of chemical weapons were moved in advance to the same Damascus suburbs where the attack allegedly took place a week ago, Arab diplomats said.
In an email on Sunday, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice told U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and other top officials that the U.N. mission was pointless because the chemical weapons evidence already was conclusive, officials said. The U.S. privately urged the U.N. to pull the inspectors out, setting the stage for President Barack Obama to possibly move forward with a military response, officials said.
The United States said Wednesday it holds Syrian President Bashar al-Assad directly responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks against his people, even though he may not have issued orders himself.
As intelligence units zero in on precisely who may have ordered the atrocity that saw up to 1,300 Syrian civilians killed in apparent poison gas attacks on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the State Department insisted Assad himself was to blame.
"We ultimately of course hold President Assad responsible for the use of chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of where the command and control lies," State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told a press briefing.
I don't understand why Obama doesn't just ignore that promise, just the same as he ignored half the promises he made during his original campaign. If an overwhelming majority of Americans are against launching missiles into another country unprovoked, it's not like he'd lose anything politically. How much does a cruise missile cost? Getting into this mess is pointless and it makes me livid as a taxpayer.
EPT
