Military Intervention in Syria. - Printable Version
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Military Intervention in Syria. (/thread-27467.html)
+- Roosh V Forum (https://rooshvforum.network)
+-- Forum: Main (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Everything Else (https://rooshvforum.network/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Military Intervention in Syria. (/thread-27467.html)
Military Intervention in Syria. - 3extra - 08-28-2013
Quote: (08-28-2013 08:32 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
Dateline aside, I don't think the issue is if gas was used, but who used it?
Dateline? The quote I just provided is from a post above that stated there is absolutely no evidence of a chemical attack. I just provided proof from an NGO with doctors on the ground who actually treated patients who had been subjected to a chemical attack.
Quote:Quote:
Who had most to gain from using chemical weapons?
The 'rebels'.
This sentiment presupposes that the Assad crime family is a rational actor. All evidence thus far is to the contrary.
My friend who works as a correspondent in international news told me earlier this week that from everything he can gather, the chemical attack seems to have originated from Maher al-Assad, the brother of Bashar, and head of the armed and security forces, seemingly without the knowledge of Bashar and the executive branch, as retribution for an attack earlier this month on the convoy of Bashar al-Assad when he was visiting a mosque in the little village that was gassed. I have absolutely no evidence of this and I am just telling you what I was told; but it seems a more likely explanation than the rebels were somehow able to launch munitions that HAD to be dropped from a airplane to disperse across such a large area. The rebels don't have access to airplanes.
Apologies, I thought the guy's user name was Dateline? My bad.
Again, not contesting whether gas was used, but by whom.
Here's a source saying it was launched by the rebels http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-r...in-syria/. Is it reliable? Fuck if I know. But I don't see Russia preparing 'punitive' strikes.
Is the Israeli 'intelligence' that it was a regime attack reliable?
No attack should be launched until concrete evidence of guilt is found.
There were UN inspectors in the country BEFORE the chemical attack. Assad knew that chemical weapons' usage was a 'red line' for Obama and others. Tyrant he may be, but he's also a western-educated, qualified doctor. Common sense would thus imply that he's not a complete fucking retard.
The regime are winning the war. Why start using chemical weapons now? The risk is greater than the reward.
These q's need to be answered before the World Police intervene.
If it's proven that it was Assad, I still wouldn't back military intervention.
Military Intervention in Syria. - bojangles - 08-28-2013
Good points farmageddon however but the west has caused a great catastrophe far more than any dictator in the past decade in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of these countries more people have died after western intervention than under their previous dictator/presidential rulers. That's a fact that despite any way in people try to reframe it can't be changed.
Also only landowners should be allowed to vote, it's how the British system worked (which in my view is the best political system ever in history) which enabled them to conquer large portions of the planet. Anyone claiming any government benefits should be barred from voting as those benefits will dictate who they vote for.
Military Intervention in Syria. - EnemyCombatant - 08-28-2013
Good points regarding how uncertain the facts on the ground are, and how hard the US is pushing on this.
Current Events Inquiry: Before we bomb Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons, five things you should know
Quote:Quote:
1. Experts on chemical warfare say that footage of the alleged gas attacks is inconsistent with the effects of weapons-grade substances.
Haaretz, 21 August 2013:
Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”
Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in, and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.”
euronews, 21 August 2013:
Stephen Johnson is an expert in weapons and chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute. He said there were inconsistency among the patients’ symptoms.
“There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if they’ve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which you’d expect to be bloodier or yellower,” Johnson said.
2. There are plausible alternative theories as to what caused the symptoms shown in the footage.
Haaretz, 21 August 2013:
“One alternative is that a large concentration of riot control agents were used here, which could have caused suffocation of large numbers of people who were pressed together in a bunker or underground shelter,” says Gwyn Winfield, a veteran researcher and editor of CBRNe World, a professional journal the effects of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare. While riot-control substances, mainly various types of tear gas, are usually deployed in small quantities using hand-grenades, they can be used in much larger quantities in artillery shells or even dropped in barrels from aircraft as the U.S. Army did in Vietnam, trying to flush the Vietcong out of its underground bunkers. In large concentrations, these substances can cause suffocation, especially in closed spaces where many of the Syrian families would have been hiding from the bombing.
Another possible explanation for the casualties is that a large bomb, or a number of bombs, created a fireball that sucked the air out of the nearby building for a short period of time, causing the asphyxiation of those inside. The Syrians have extensively used fuel-air bombs, which create a large vacuum beneath the blast and could have lead to many such casualties.
3. There have been previous allegations from UN officials that the rebels, not the regime, have used chemical weapons.
Reuters, 5 May 2013:
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday. The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.
“Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television. “This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,” she added, speaking in Italian.
4. The US has asserted that possible UN inspections of the site of the alleged gas attack are “too late to be credible.”
LA Times, 25 August 2013:
U.N. officials confirmed that its inspection team, already in Syria to investigate previous allegations of chemical weapons use, would begin “on-site fact-finding activities” Monday. The Syrians have “agreed to provide the necessary cooperation,” including a “cessation of hostilities” in the area, the U.N. statement said.
But a senior administration official, in a written statement given to reporters on condition of anonymity, brushed aside the Syrian offer. “If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the U.N. — five days ago,” the official said. By now, the government has had many opportunities to destroy evidence, including by shelling the areas, the official noted. A “belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible,” the statement said. U.S. officials are continuing to assess the facts to determine “how to respond to this indiscriminate use of chemical weapons,” the official said. “The president has not made a decision to take action. But as you’ve seen, we think there is little doubt that these attacks were undertaken by the regime,” the official said.
5. A planned UN inspections of the alleged attack site have been delayed due to insecurity allegedly created by rebel forces.
NY Times, 27 August 2013:
United Nations weapons inspectors in Syria postponed a second visit to suspected attack sites on the outskirts of the capital, Damascus, after having failed to secure assurances of their safety, the United Nations and Syrian officials said.
[...]
On the ground in Syria, United Nations inspectors, who came under sniper fire on Monday before a visit to one location, had been set “to continue their investigation in a different site” on Tuesday, the United Nations said in a statement. But after the attack on Monday, “a comprehensive assessment determined that the visit should be postponed by one day in order to improve preparedness and safety for the team.” The statement said the inspectors had not received “confirmation of access.”
Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, said that the inspectors’ trip had been delayed by one day because of disputes among the rebel groups. The minister said the insurgents could not agree on issues related to guaranteeing the inspectors’ safety. He gave no further details.
Military Intervention in Syria. - scorpion - 08-28-2013
Quote: (08-28-2013 07:57 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:
We don't necessarily want war, we just recognize it's inevitability. Confrontation with totalitarianism is always inevitable and it will be until it is eradicated.
![[Image: facepalm.png]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/facepalm.png)
If you honestly believe this, then we will never see eye to eye on this issue. You seem to think that the West has some kind of moral imperative to "eradicate totalitarianism" from the face of the Earth. Personally, I can't begin to imagine a more quixotic effort than that. And frankly, the entire idea is so insanely hypocritical that I can't understand how any thinking person can endorse it. You want to eradicate totalitarianism by...invading sovereign nations and wrecking the shit out of them? What the hell could be more totalitarian than that? It's like trying to end bullying by killing and maiming every kid in the schoolyard. The fact is that the West itself is totalitarian in nature. We demand that countries play ball with our economic and political dictates, and if they don't, they get the hammer. The idea that a confrontation with tiny Syria (or any of the other handful of tinpot dictators we've knocked off over the past decade for that matter) is somehow "inevitable" is simply laughable. The combined power of the West/NATO dwarfs all of those countries by several orders of magnitude. They pose us zero threat. Foreign civil wars are none of our concern. Every time we intervene in the Middle East, we simply make things worse and create new complications. I find it utterly amazing that people can still be in favor of more Middle East adventurism at this point.
We're not exactly the ones wearing white hats, here. Everything we do is out of blind self-interest. The arguments you hear on television and in the media are propaganda designed to sway public opinion, nothing more. You and SexyBack don't seem to realize that. I have no doubt that you both have the best of intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. People in power have been taking advantage of the credulous and well-intentioned to get them to acquiesce to war since time immemorial. The reality is that the common man has nothing to gain from his government meddling in foreign wars.
"History and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." - George Washington
Military Intervention in Syria. - 3extra - 08-28-2013
A little off point, but in honour of what RVF is all about:
Assad's wife
![[Image: banana.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/banana.gif)
Military Intervention in Syria. - Damedius - 08-28-2013
Quote: (08-28-2013 09:14 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:
[quote]Quote:
Now it's the under control of the west who put him in power in the first place. Hussein would have never come to power without US guns and money. On top of that people are dying everyday in iraq. For the people in Iraq, the situation has worsened not improved.
(08-29-2013, 02:14 AM)Farmageddon Wrote: The West did not put Saddam Hussein in power. He gained power from nepotism; his cousin, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, was the Prime Minister of Iraq and made the mistake of promoting his cousin to head of the security forces; which he later used to consolidate his power and overthrow al-Bakr in a bloodless coup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Hassan_al-Bakr
http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/richar...r_2002.htm
In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim, and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up a key post in the new regime. He was in charge of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided this new pliant, Iraqi regime with a nice gift. It supplied them with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq. (Providing such "assassination lists" to newly empowered military regimes is standard practice for the CIA.
Quote:Quote:
Don't fool yourself. This isn't about democracy. This was about getting control of the poppy fields and getting the flow of drugs going again. It was also about setting up forward operating bases.
Quote: (08-28-2013 09:14 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_produ...fghanistan
?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...EN-61.html
The taliban was working to eliminate the production of heroin and opium. Since we took over, production has skyrocketed.
Quote:Quote:
The US also made and trained Al-Qaeda .
Quote: (08-28-2013 09:14 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0228
A quote from the actual leader of Al-Qaeda would seem to contradict your sentiment, and I quote, from the book, "Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet" by Zawahiri: "“the collapse of the Soviet Union … goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan … the US had no mentionable role,” but “collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/s...o-911.html
This is actually common knowledge, I had thought. The Bush and Bin Laden families have been linked for years.
Military Intervention in Syria. - Wadsworth - 08-28-2013
How to save the world using Western moral superiority™.
1. Deny one`s own totalitarian nature.
2. Ensure a significant economic incentive for invading country X.
3. Convince public of imminent totalitarian boogeyman in country X.
4. Ensure a paltry knowledge of the culture, religion, and politics in country X.
5. Deploy army-of-one propaganda for young men.
6. Put jingoistic flag-waving machine into overdrive, structure non-compliance as unpatriotic and suspicious.
7. (optional) Remove dictator, plunge country X into social and political chaos.
8. Lie to public about woefully expensive, highly dubious war effort.
9. Bring troops home amidst protest and political scandal, leave country X to tear itself apart.
10. Deny severity of PTSD in troops, avoid paying them if possible, redistribute their paltry monies to whorish ex-wives, wait for them to kill themselves.
Most effective if repeated once per decade.
Military Intervention in Syria. - Yatagan - 08-28-2013
Quote: (08-28-2013 10:02 PM)3extra Wrote:
A little off point, but in honour of what RVF is all about:
Assad's wife
Any word on what she's up to these days? She's a definite bang.
Military Intervention in Syria. - TheRookie - 08-29-2013
It may be hard to come to grips with this, but the Western leaders are charlatans and frauds. I am coming to the stark realization that if WWIII plays out then the Americans, French and British are going to be playing the part of the aggressive, Axis countries.
Surprisingly, Putin and Assad come across as rational and honorable statesmen in this conflict. I would encourage anyone who wants to understand the other side, unfiltered by Western media, to read this recent interview with Assad:
Quote:Quote:
Q1 Interviewer: Mr President, the most pressing question today is the current situation in Syria. What parts of the country remain under the rebels’ control?
President al-Assad: From our perspective, it’s not a matter of labelling areas as controlled by terrorists or by the government; we are not dealing with a conventional occupation to allow us to contextualise it in this manner. We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.
Our challenge, which has protracted the situation, is the influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries - estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least. As long as they continue to receive financial and military aid, we will continue to strike them. I can confirm that there has not been any instance where the Syrian Army has planned to enter a particular location and has not succeeded in eliminating the terrorists within it.
The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine, in addition to a small number of outlaws, so as I said this not about who controls more areas of land. Wherever terrorism strikes, we shall strike back.
Quote:Quote:
Q3 Interviewer: Mr President, you have spoken of Islamist Takfiri extremists’ fighters who have entered Syria. Are they fragmented groups who fight sporadically? Or do they belong to a coherent major force that seeks to destroy the security and stability in Syria and the whole Middle East?
President al-Assad: They have both traits. They are similar in that they all share the same extremist Takfiri doctrine of certain individuals such as Zawahiri; they also have similar or identical financial backing and military support. They differ on the ground in that they are incoherent and scattered with each group adhering to a separate leader and pursuing different agendas. Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.
Ideologically, these countries mobilise them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond. Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergised when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.
Quote:Quote:
Q5 Interviewer: Mr. President, this interview will be translated into several international languages, and shall be read by world leaders, some who may currently be working against you. What would you like to say to them?
President al-Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?
From another perspective, these politicians should know that terrorism is not a winning card you play when it suits you and keep it in your pocket when it doesn't. Terrorism is like a scorpion; it can unexpectedly sting you at any time. Therefore, you cannot support terrorism in Syria whilst fighting it in Mali; you cannot support terrorism in Chechnya and fight it in Afghanistan.
To be very precise, I am referring to the West and not all world leaders, if these western leaders are looking to achieve their interests, they need to listen to their own constituents and to the people in this region rather than seeking to install ‘puppet’ leaders, in the hope that they would be able to deliver their objectives. In doing so, western policy may become more realistic in the region.
Our message to the world is straightforward: Syria will never become a Western ‘puppet’ state. We are an independent country; we will fight terrorism and we will freely build relationships with countries in a way that best serves the interests of the Syrian people.
Military Intervention in Syria. - LeBeau - 08-29-2013
Quote: (08-29-2013 12:43 AM)TheRookie Wrote:
Surprisingly, Putin and Assad come across as rational and honorable statesmen in this conflict.
I understand the need for examining all different viewpoints, but lets not get carried away with the Western criticism to the point where we're calling guys like that "honorable".
The West has a lot of problems right now but there's nothing honorable about Assad in general, even if you were to disregard this current conflict and just look at how he ran Syria in the past.
Scorpion's post summed up a lot of my thinking, but at the same time, most of us posting here won a genetic lottery being able to be raised in countries where we at least had basic freedoms, even if some of them are currently eroding.
I read Zerohedge as well, but take their non-market commentary with a grain of salt, and keep in mind what kind of audience they're satisfying.
Military Intervention in Syria. - scorpion - 08-29-2013
Quote:Quote:
President al-Assad: Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen. Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events. Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least? Have they not realised that since the Vietnam War, all the wars their predecessors have waged have failed? Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilising effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world? Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?
Damn that's some real talk.
![[Image: ohshit.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/ohshit.gif)
Military Intervention in Syria. - Sonsowey - 08-29-2013
Assad demonstrates perfectly the ridiculousness of America's "Global War on Terror".
"Terrorist" is just a bad word you call your enemy. There is no definition of "terrorist" that America actually consistently applies across the world.
Under U.S. penal code, terrorism is actually defined as:
(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
© occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
Using this definition, the Syrian opposition is clearly "terrorism" and indeed any armed movement in opposition to any government is "terrorism".
Yet the United States indeed has funded and supplied these "terrorists" in this case, and opposes them in other cases.
This could be beating a dead horse but Ronald Reagan proudly called the Afghan Mujihadeen, including Bin Laden, "Freedom Fighters" when they were fighting Soviet invaders, and gladly funded and trained them. We are just repeating the same mistakes over and over. It is comical.
Obama in this case is the biggest clown around because he KNOWS what is going on, there are videos of him talking about avoiding "stupid wars" and "blowback". He argued against all of this and now he can't wait to involve us in it. What a clown.
Military Intervention in Syria. - Maciano - 08-29-2013
I quote a tweet from Pax Dickinson here: "how any american could have lived through the past decade and still swallow this syria nonsense is utterly fucking beyond me"
I could write a lot (a whole lot) more, but this basicly sums it up.
Military Intervention in Syria. - jaakkeli - 08-29-2013
Quote: (08-28-2013 08:17 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
Except we still have no proof whatsoever that anyone was "gassed"
Absurd. Even the organization Medecins Sans Frontiers, an organization which I personally donate about 5% of my income to, a completely apolitical charity, has stated there was use of chemical weapons in Syria
So, MSF is quoted as saying that several hospitals in Syria are reporting strange symptoms while an unnamed opposition source thinks this is proof that the government using rockets filled with chemicals. The unnamed rebel source is dismissible so what we are left with is a third hand account from MSF.
The MSF hasn't seen any chemical weapons, they haven't spoken to people who've seen any chemical weapons, they haven't treated any patients with chemical weapons injuries; all they have is "contacts" in Syrian medical staff that are feeding them info. We have no way of knowing whether these contacts are working for rebels or whether they're being pressured by rebels.
Even if the reports of mysterious symptoms are true it's no proof of chemical weapons. It's a war zone out there and factories and warehouses, gas stations, warehouses etc are getting bombed or just looted and accidental poisonings aren't unlikely at all. Not to mention medical care has collapsed in much of the country - for all we know these mysterious symptoms could just be an epidemic.
I find it unbelievable that after decades of being fed this bullshit all it takes is an unnamed rebel source and third hand reports mysterious deaths and half the West still just goes "OH MY GOD, ASSAD IS THE NEXT HITLER AND THE REBELS ARE LUKE SKYWALKER!!!"
Quote:Quote:
We know Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, Bashar al-Assad has said in public that they are in secured facilities. So, in all seriousness, would have been more likely to use them? A state that is backed into a corner
Why would they use them? What's the point? What did they gain? What's the point of throwing a few rockets with chemicals into apparently civilian areas? I asked before who are the victims (religion? party? ethnicity? etc) and why were they gassed and predicted that none of the war buffs would be able to answer that.
Without any explanation to that it sure sounds like another story of Germans bayoneting nuns as part of their war strategy. If it makes no sense from the perspective of the enemy but makes perfect sense from the perspective of domestic war propagandists, the odds are the story was made up by those war propagandists.
(the MSF link included)
Quote:Quote:
Medical Charity MSF says 355 dead in chemical attack in Syria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/2...AV20130825
Military Intervention in Syria. - Cincinnatus - 08-29-2013
U.N. weapons inspectors are supposed to leave by Saturday. So, I guess we strike Saturday night?
Military Intervention in Syria. - durangotang - 08-29-2013
I just called the office of three of my congressman to make sure they understand I do not support a strike on Syria. Of course they just take a message which probably is worthless, however I'd like to think if enough people called up they would get the message that there isn't public support for any more middle eastern wars.
Time spent: 5 minutes
Military Intervention in Syria. - Handsome Creepy Eel - 08-30-2013
I am not at all against such interventions in case of civil wars like this. After all, it worked well in Kosovo and Libya, and it helped in Bosnia and Croatia (albeit a bit too late). These things, if done strictly as air support or long distance bombardment, might help to reduce overall destruction and casualties without infuriating the local populace and ruining the "savior image". For the same reason, I think such a thing might be reasonable in Syria.
That said, pulling out the chemical weapons boogeyman is just insane and extremely hypocritical. Obama is all the same as Bush in this regard, trampling all over reason and his previous principles as soon as it becomes convenient for his goals. If USA attacks Syria, it should do it because it believes the rebels to be right, not because of the choice of weaponry in this conflict.
Military Intervention in Syria. - Handsome Creepy Eel - 08-30-2013
His wife looks Scottish to me. Certainly a pretty woman that pulls off the light brown/blonde curly hair well. This kind of haircut usually looks horrendous on women with less than perfect figures, but it seems to fit her well.
Where is she from?
Military Intervention in Syria. - Damedius - 08-30-2013
Quote: (08-30-2013 02:20 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
His wife looks Scottish to me. Certainly a pretty woman that pulls off the light brown/blonde curly hair well. This kind of haircut usually looks horrendous on women with less than perfect figures, but it seems to fit her well.
Where is she from?
British born, Syrian descent.
Military Intervention in Syria. - EisenBarde - 08-30-2013
Obama can declare any war he wants for all I care.
I'm not gonna sign up to fight in any of them.
Military Intervention in Syria. - Sonsowey - 08-30-2013
Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, similar to the basic premise of NATO, in that an attack on one is considered an attack on both.
Obama must know this, yet this fact is being kept out of public discourse pretty intentionally. Is Obama trying to draw Iran into attacking the U.S. forces in Syria so he can go on to attack Iran?
Here's an article:
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard says it is committed to defense treaty with Syria
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/0...88662.html
Military Intervention in Syria. - roberto - 08-30-2013
For the UK members...
![[Image: 133531d1377854619-william-hague-what-hel...614613.jpg]](http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/attachments/lounge/133531d1377854619-william-hague-what-hell-you-thinking-imageuploadedbyarbtalk1377854617.614613.jpg)
Military Intervention in Syria. - scorpion - 08-30-2013
The soundbites I keep hearing from John Kerry about Syria are so laughable. Maudlin emotional appeals about the hundreds of dead Syrian children, vague pronouncements that the use of chemical weapons in Syria poses a national security risk to the U.S., and assurances that Assad is responsible despite zero evidence.
Especially laughable considering that the United States:
- Was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqi children from starvation due to the sanctions placed on Iraq in the '90s
- Gave Saddam Hussein the chemical weapons he used against Iran in 1988, and
- Infamously falsified evidence about an Iraqi WMD program to sell the war in Iraq in 2002-3
Secondly, is this not the most ridiculous rationale regarding what constitutes an act of war? Since when does shooting cruise missiles into a sovereign country not constitute an act of war? Simply violating the grounds of another country's embassy is technically an invasion and an act of war. But the Obama administration claims that shooting cruise missiles into a country is NOT an act of war. Can anyone follow that logic? Imagine what would happen if Iran shot cruise missiles into Washington? "Oh, that was no biggie. Not an act of war or anything. Iran, we're cool." That would be a cold day in hell.
We're really through the looking glass here. This entire thing is so insane. There isn't even the barest bit of logic behind the government's rationale. It's like they don't even feel the need to bother anymore. They know it doesn't matter. They will just do what they want and no one can stop them. We have entered the Imperial age of America. Bush was the first to publicly claim the purple. Obama is the second, and has surpassed his predecessor in the bold exercise of his imperial power. God help us if the trend continues.
Military Intervention in Syria. - kosko - 08-30-2013
Quote: (08-30-2013 05:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:
The soundbites I keep hearing from John Kerry about Syria are so laughable. Maudlin emotional appeals about the hundreds of dead Syrian children, vague pronouncements that the use of chemical weapons in Syria poses a national security risk to the U.S., and assurances that Assad is responsible despite zero evidence.
Especially laughable considering that the United States:So he is literally full of shit on every single account. Absolutely lying through his teeth. And recall this is the same shithead who ran for President in 2004 on an anti-Iraq war platform! These people are totally fucking shameless. I'm also completely mystified that they keep emphasizing they have no intention to seek regime change, and that shooting cruise missiles into another sovereign country does not constitute an act of war, and therefore does not require the President to seek the approval of Congress under the War Powers Act before doing so. On the first note, if they insist they aren't seeking to remove Assad, then what the fuck is the point? What ARE they trying to do? The only answer is they are trying to intentionally inflame the situation in the Middle East.
- Was responsible for the death of half a million Iraqi children from starvation due to the sanctions placed on Iraq in the '90s
- Gave Saddam Hussein the chemical weapons he used against Iran in 1988, and
- Infamously falsified evidence about an Iraqi WMD program to sell the war in Iraq in 2002-3
Secondly, is this not the most ridiculous rationale regarding what constitutes an act of war? Since when does shooting cruise missiles into a sovereign country not constitute an act of war? Simply violating the grounds of another country's embassy is technically an invasion and an act of war. But the Obama administration claims that shooting cruise missiles into a country is NOT an act of war. Can anyone follow that logic? Imagine what would happen if Iran shot cruise missiles into Washington? "Oh, that was no biggie. Not an act of war or anything. Iran, we're cool." That would be a cold day in hell.
We're really through the looking glass here. This entire thing is so insane. There isn't even the barest bit of logic behind the government's rationale. It's like they don't even feel the need to bother anymore. They know it doesn't matter. They will just do what they want and no one can stop them. We have entered the Imperial age of America. Bush was the first to publicly claim the purple. Obama is the second, and has surpassed his predecessor in the bold exercise of his imperial power. God help us if the trend continues.
The USA is on its last legs structurally. Surprisingly the issue of QE has not been brought up in this discussion. The idea of money is centre on this because the USA has ZERO... I repeat ZERO positive positioning in this conflict with Syria. Syria no not bummy Afghanistan with fucking camels, nor is it a weakened Iraq which never re-built up to its strength from the previous Gulf War. Syria is a highly capable military state like any other rational military state build up and has fortified its borders to protect itself. You look at the hardware they pack and they have the ability to inflict sizeable damage to USA hardware with many good innocent men loosing their lives in the process.
I have so much to say on this topic but I will just stick to two points right now.
A. MSM and the USA are full of shit 100% on Syria, Assad did not do shit.
B. Its all about the oil, this time more than ever.
A. It makes no sense for a holder power, and a ethnic minority whiten that country holding that position of power to attack his own people in masse.
Look anybody can read all the shitty CNN articles they want, but that is just a simple peace of logic there. If Assad did carry out chemical attacks on his own people his fellow Alawites would be hunted down and dragged through the streets instantly. It makes zero strategic sense to do this. The last time an attack on its people was carried out via these means, Saddam did this towards a ethnic minority people, the Kurds whiten the great region of Iraq. Mind you this was all okay'd by DC and it was USA chemicals that did the deed, lets not forget that.
If one does not register this, then your an idiot. Simple. It makes simple sense to the fact that if you look like this:
![[Image: SkinnyKid.png]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vwRAgyvqsjE/TWflJ9Y82pI/AAAAAAAAABM/LVpXIhuvEow/s320/SkinnyKid.png)
You would not go start shit with a group of guys solo whom look like this:
![[Image: rFLkFDR.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/rFLkFDR.jpg)
That is the position of weakness Assad and his people holds in greater Syria.
Lets not also forget that the Syrian army is made up a host of ethnic/religious groups that are present in Syria. An attack in masse on people whom hold blood allegiance to military members would through creditability for Assad out the window. The force of real resistance and military whom would turn against Assad would be to great.
Why wouldn't Gen. Fahd Jassem al-Freij simply just turn to Assad and put a bullet in his head? If this man is hell bent on gassing his people, people whom are of Generals Jassems blood/heritage and if Assad is a outnumbered man on supposed limited and waning power with all for him to gain on a personal level why would he not just take Assad out and assume loyalty for the military instantly that he already presently controls. If this supposed resistance to Assad is so great what would be the negatives of doing so? In a rational situation it would make 100% perfect sense for the General to do this if of course the claims of Assad as the aggressor were indeed true.
In Hitler's most radical and waning stages of power it was people from whiten whom held plots to kill him. Many attempts to take him out were made to the point Hilter did the deed himself. The July 20 plot was one of many in the year of 1944 in which internal factions tried to kill Hitler. The idea that evil holds supreme power is bullshit, power is only granted to you by the people whom protect it for you and once you cross that line with them the power is non-existent. Military juntas and dictators survive of a close and beneficial relationship with people whom protect that power.
![[Image: jXX6P7N.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/jXX6P7N.jpg)
^Explosion which was intended to kill hilter, July 20th 1944.
How the hell could Assad survive the notion that he gassed the miltary's relatives and such? Think of how that makes no sense, its all laughable. They would mow him down instantly if it were true.
This is why the notion is bullshit. It makes no sense for anybody to attack their own unless a real motive beyond that exists that is greater then the loss of their own. But in the case of Syria this does not exist. No grand regional extension of power exists for insulated Syria, Syria is a powerful standalone state and Assad has no tactical gains for throwing his own people under the bus like the USA, UK, Stalin-USSR, or Hitler Germany for instance have had in the past.
What we have seen even is in typical fashion of power brokering true concessions. The Assad regime has had to broker deals with the Kurds present in the North regions to maintain the idea of upholding Syrian State borders in the present form. Why have the Kurds not come out and jump on the back of the bigger USA if Assad signed a suicide note in perusing the attacks himself?
No logical sense. Any augments to try and prove otherwise are based on lies because it makes zero strategic sense for Assad to have carry out the attacks. Obama, Kerry, CNN, BBC, whomever can say whatever the fuck they want but it does not make it true. If you listen to the positions of the Syrian government they are the ones whom speak more in a tone of rationality, reading their statements mirrors what has been seen in real media accounts of the past 2 years.
Now that is out of the way ....
Why is the USA aggressively pursuing the Syrian option?
With QE tapped out, the USA needs cash... badly. I have stated on this form before that USA grand strategy is to throw the ME into a pit of flames to try and grossly inflate the price of oil to give it a huge infusion of cash it badly needs. The Petrodollar USD$, tied to oil, will mean a surplus of cash coming into the American system if prices skyrocket. This is the USA trying to throw everybody under the bus because if this does happen the globe will for sure slip back into another steep economic dip we saw in 2008. USD$ Cash reserves are directly tied to this and it will gamble on sky high prices to bring in cash it needs to keep the game of musical chairs going domestically. This is the USA system on its last breath, it has zero reason to go into Syria. It has potential to destroy systematically the USA army as much - if not more - then what Vietnam did.
B. The Oil:
Syria has marginal or no stakes in the global oil trade but it is in a key position of influence among allies and states whom do. The USA gamble on Syria instantly places allies Egypt and Iran on the offensive in possible moves to close/black the most strategic oil routes in the world in Suez and the Strait of Harmouz. Also would be the regional disruption of construction or even purposeful destruction of key China-Russian-Shanghai Cooperation Organization energy pipeline routes which will eventually pass through into Iran.
Literally if an attack goes down and Iran and Egypt put in place blockades, oil won't move. Also major exporters Russia and Venezuela would also slow things down, OPEC could respond possibly. The hit on the chin America took in the 70's would be magnified, the average American would be thrown into the flames for the American system to chug along for a little bit longer on its last gasp for cash.
The push play could be to offer Assad a deal as what was on the table for Gadaffi in Libya. But Assad is not stupid, as he knows full well that on his way to meet with the West to broker the deal (to partition Libya 3-ways and grant Gadaffi a central section in which his ethnic tribe and supporters would keep power) the West killed Gadaffi in cold blood. Assad will know any attempt an under the table deal would mean a similar fate and would be wise to reject it.
As Scorpion has noted the USA has zero credibility. They are completely irrational and full of it. The USA is knocking on hells door if it peruses this mission, especially solo. Syria could fleece my countries military and many others outside of radical states like Eritrea and major blocks such as France for instance. This would be the first battle the USA would face with a full and capable military in decades. To put it in perspective during the First Gulf-War Iraq had a few hundred Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMS) which were one of the main casualty causes for coalition forces. Syria has 4,000 + Surface-to-Air missiles of greater new technology Russian and Chinese technology then the previous Soviet Era SAMS that were widely used in the Gulf War. Nobody knows really how much more effective this new tech and could cause considerable damage to USA air equipment in a conflict.
People point to the isolation of the Russia in this matter, but with the UK pulling out its the USA now isolated. The news points to the opposition of Russia and China is some how a billion people and over half of the liveable political landmass's on earth does not mean anything. Lets not forget that notions brought about via conventional UN Assembly means were also voted down. The USA is literally on its own aside from it's deadbeat allies France and the UK whom have nothing to offer but rhetoric right now, and nobody else is touching this shit with a 10 foot pole. Germany has been largely silent, Canada can offer nothing but words and cash with its tin-can military, Italy is broke and so is Spain. Jumping into the pit with Syria means you will looses hundreds of millions in military tech and a bunch of lives, and nobody, especially now with bleak economic prospects in the West, wants to take that on.
Also void is a the typical corny aspect of war: No money to be made from selling Syria arms and tech as its already has what it needs, also no case to be made from taking over resources or money from rebuilding. Russian and Chinese firms will get those contracts not Western firms. The USA can offer its partners nothing in the deal and will blindly now face a situation where it has to jump headfirst into dark waters.
Military Intervention in Syria. - PoosyWrecker - 08-30-2013
Farmageddon, as an introduction to government drug trafficking you can begin with:
The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred W. McCoy, Yale educated history professor
The numerous interviews with Michael Levine, veteran DEA agent and whistleblower
Did you know that a Special Operations task force could have captured Bin Laden in the early days of GWOT but were ordered not to? Read the book Killing Bin Laden by Dalton Fury (pseudonym), the Delta Force ground commander of the operation.
Did you know that many hallucinogenic drugs that have shown potential to cure heroin and cocaine addiction have been listed by the government as Schedule I Drugs: The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
edit: To anyone unsure of the motivations of the many US wars and interventions you can usually find one or more of the following drivers:
1. Drugs, cocaine and opium trafficking
2. Finance, ensuring that all nations are tied to our monetary system
3. Oil, maintaining control of sources and manipulating its value
4. Israel, the destruction of its enemies
What you will never find is anything that benefits the American people who fund and fight these wars.