[Marco]

(08-27-2013 07:14 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:30 AM)Marco Wrote:  

Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

If that was the cause, we would have intervened in Darfur. The motives of our government are far from pure.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Irani...acks-Syria

They want Iran. American hegemony is threatened by Iran. The less the dollar is used as a reserve currency, the less power our government can control.

Interesting article.
In Drafur there was no chemical weapons. I dont have numbers in darfur but in Syria is over 100,000 casualties already.
I guess there are other motives but if Assad would not have use chemical weapons, probably no one would attack him.

[Bad Hussar]

(08-26-2013 03:22 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

...

It's clear who benefits from this so-called chemical attack (I doubt it even is one). First and foremost the Syrian rebels including Al Qaeda. America, the UK, and France who want to topple Assad. And Israel who wants to remove another regional rival and who seems to enjoy getting the U.S. to fight its own wars.

As far as I've heard Israel is on record as saying that they will prefer an intact, but severely weakened Asaad regime in Syria. Syria currently doesn't present a significant threat to them, whereas chaos and Al Qaeda elements on the loose are much more unpredictable and dangerous. If pedaling conspiracy theories I'd rather bet that Israel supported the recent military coup in Egypt. Much more in their interest than toppling Asaad.

[muc]

Interventions:

1. Use Bombs, Rockets, Ammo to make more Bombs, Rockets, Ammo. = Profit.
2. Rebuild just bombed country = Profit.
3. Put friendly regime in place = Profit.

[SexyBack]

This is definitely happening friends, Saturday or more likely Sunday night.

60-100 cruise missiles from the destroyer in Mediterranean, maybe some long range bombers as well as the UK sub in the area. Not sure how the french plan on getting in on the act, maybe search and seizure off vessels going into Syrian ports.

Why? To send a message that the use of chemical weapons barred by the 1993 treaty will not be accepted.

Why are the UK/US governments convinced it was Assad's forces? The gas used most likely was Sarin or a related agent. An agent that has been used in that area of the world before. The symptoms of the victims clearly point towards Sarin gas or a close related agent. The attack was large scale and the gas was dispersed over a large area. The munition used must have been airburst and large in caliber or delivered by aircraft. The rebels don't have 155 mm artillery batteries capable of delivering such munitions over such a large area in an organised attack nor do they have an airforce. There seems to be very little doubt.

Why did Assad do it? Maybe it was unintentional. Troops firing a bunch of munitions they didn't know was chemical? Maybe he's not fully in charge of his own military anymore. Trigger happy commander at a batallion level?

British and US public are vastly against any such action, regardless UK parliament will approve these punitive strikes on Thursday. They are trying to protect civilians plus the rest of the world needs reminding that the west and NATO is still very much in charge. Russia and Iran can moan and threaten as much as they want, they're being diregarded. As with Lybia there will be no invasion of Syria or ground troops in Syria. The situation in Syria won't be resolved by the impending strikes. I doubt anyone is under the illusion that this would solve anything.

This is all it amounts to: use chemical weapons, your shit goes up in flames overnight. So think very carely about what you're doing in future.

All the geopolicy and ww3 is premature nonsense at this stage. The assumption is that Assad is not insane. The question is what happens if he responds to missile strikes with more chemical weapons or shelling of israel or turkey? I doubt anyone has even considered that, but if it happens Russia and China cannot stand behind Assad anymore, Turkey could invoke article 5 which would result in a definite NATO response and if Israel is attacked they will invade and disarm Syria in less than 2 weeks.

There are no big scale wars anymore because no one can remotely compete with the military might of the west and NATO.

[SexyBack]

double post sorry. No clue how that happened.

[Cattle Rustler]

Allowing people above a certain IQ is a good way to keep stupid people from voting. That might sound elitist but it's just as elitist as allowing land-owners to vote.

(08-27-2013 08:43 AM)muc Wrote:  

Interventions:

1. Use Bombs, Rockets, Ammo to make more Bombs, Rockets, Ammo. = Profit.
2. Rebuild just bombed country = Profit.
3. Put friendly regime in place = Profit.

4. Have said regime in 3 toppled only after a few months in power.

[Sherman]

Evidence: Syria gas attack work of U.S. allies

http://www.prisonplanet.com/evidence-syr...llies.html

[Damedius]

(08-27-2013 08:39 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:22 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

...

It's clear who benefits from this so-called chemical attack (I doubt it even is one). First and foremost the Syrian rebels including Al Qaeda. America, the UK, and France who want to topple Assad. And Israel who wants to remove another regional rival and who seems to enjoy getting the U.S. to fight its own wars.

As far as I've heard Israel is on record as saying that they will prefer an intact, but severely weakened Asaad regime in Syria. Syria currently doesn't present a significant threat to them, whereas chaos and Al Qaeda elements on the loose are much more unpredictable and dangerous. If pedaling conspiracy theories I'd rather bet that Israel supported the recent military coup in Egypt. Much more in their interest than toppling Asaad.

What you say and what you wish is often different in politics.

Israel has been bombing Syria. They have done this under the pretext of intercepting weapons heading to Hezbollah.

They have also given away oil rights to Genie. A company thats major stockholders include Rupert Murdoch, Jacob Rothschild and Dick Cheney.

[CactusCat589]

(08-26-2013 10:00 PM)CJ_W Wrote:  

Dont you think Russia is involved in this too? You'd think they'd be all in league with each other, as they'd make a lot more money that way (and playing the "other side" while getting a huge piece of the pie)

I mean it wouldn't make much sense to go to war with each other over this and lose more resources than it's worth. They've gotta be all in on this, but playing this game so that the common person doens't know.

I think Russia's genuine in its opposition to the U.S. In 2011, they dumped the majority of all of its holdings in U.S. treasuries, and under Putin's direction invested a significant portion of their GDP in diversifying out of dollar-denominated assets into things like gold. They've also struck up bilateral free trade with Iran, which has a mutual defense treaty with Syria.

Interestingly, Israel wiped their hands clean of our debt as well.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/israel-h...95-percent

[Wadsworth]

(08-26-2013 03:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

It's official: Obama's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster.

but.. but.. Nobel Peace Prize rofl

[CactusCat589]

Plus, everyone stopped talking about the NSA. Well-played?

[greensteelhead]

American warships are steaming to the hot zone fast. Here is a roster:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27...yrias-neck

Some sources are saying there will be the tomahawk missle salvo in the next few days (as early as Thursday). The irony of responding to "chemical weapons" with missle strikes is pretty good. Send in the drones after the missles hit; you have a lot of air defenses to take out.

This Administration has not been challenged nor will be challenged by opposition. Who will ask the hard questions or sue to stop them? The Republicans like Graham or McCain?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No.

So much for your Nobel Peace Prize winning POS and his "I voted for it before I voted against it" Sec of State. Kiss my ass.

[greensteelhead]

CactusCat is on to it as well. Nothing but games and bullshit.

[LowerCaseG]

Russia's #1 export is Energy. Their #2 export is armaments. Syria and Iran are their biggest customers. It's simple economics. Of course Russia will support their biggest customers.

Secondly, I cannot understand you guys who think that Obama is pro-Israel. He is up there with Jimmy Carter as the most hostile president to Israel since it was created.

Please recognize that huge amounts of Jewish property was confiscated throughout the Arab world between 1948 and 1967. I don't hear anyone arguing vast property across North Africa and Iran etc...should be returned to their rightful owners.

[DjembaDjemba]

Putin...huffs, puffs, does nothing.

Obama - praying at an altar the US economy will go into a sustained recovery. Doesn't want to involve himself in the middle east. Doesn't seem to give a shit anymore.

Assad/The Syrians - doing what they've been doing since they've been ruled by Nebuchadnezzar. No change here. Every once in a while some foreign empire will rule or influence them for a stint and then it's back to basics. The Greeks, the Romans, Ottomans, British, French, Americans/Russians, call it imperial carousel.

The British/Cameron - dreaming of the old glory days

The Chinese - counting money

[K Galt]

Have a look at the recently passed H.R. 4133


"H.R. 4133 would state that it is U.S. policy to: reaffirm the commitment to Israel's security as a Jewish state; provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself by itself against any threats; veto any one-sided anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council; support Israel’s inherent right to self-defense; expand military and civilian cooperation; assist in a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security and to encourage Israel's neighbors to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."

This country is hopelessly indebted, rising unemployment, and sinking further and further towards economic collapse, and our so-called leaders are voting to send more money and military hardware to a foreign country halfway around the globe? Nice to see our elected leaders got there priorities straight! Never mind all the problems here at home, it's Zion we must support above all else!

Only one man stood up on the Floor of the USofZ Congress and voiced opposition.

Former Representative Ron Paul's Statement on H.R.4133:

Mr. Speaker: I rise in opposition to HR 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, which unfortunately is another piece of one-sided and counter-productive foreign policy legislation. This bill's real intent seems to be more saber-rattling against Iran and Syria, and it undermines US diplomatic efforts by making clear that the US is not an honest broker seeking peace for the Middle East.


The bill calls for the United States to significantly increase our provision of sophisticated weaponry to Israel, and states that it is to be US policy to "help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge" in the region.


While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation -- should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by US taxpayers and backed up by the US military.


This bill states that it is the policy of the United States to "reaffirm the enduring commitment of the United States to the security of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." However, according to our Constitution the policy of the United States government should be to protect the security of the United States, not to guarantee the religious, ethnic, or cultural composition of a foreign country. In fact, our own Constitution prohibits the establishment of any particular religion in the US.


More than 20 years after the reason for NATO's existence – the Warsaw Pact – has disappeared, this legislation seeks to find a new mission for that anachronistic alliance: the defense of Israel. Calling for "an expanded role for Israel within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises," it reads like a dream for interventionists and the military industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded not expanded.


This bill will not help the United States, it will not help Israel, and it will not help the Middle East. It will implicitly authorize much more US interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill."

Gee, you think Ron Paul was on to something here?

AIPAC is one of the most influential PAC's in D.C.

If and when we go to war anywhere in the M.E., it's because Zion want's us to.

[kdolo]

(08-26-2013 03:07 PM)luggage Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 03:00 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  

Anyone else reading that the chemical weapons might actually be used and held by the rebel forces rather than Assad's troops in the first place?

Doubt it man. Bunch of crooked dudes can't get hold of some chemical weapons let alone use it. Who gave it to them? the U.S? Pfft...

Doubt what ?!?!?! that the CIA backed "rebels" are actually the one who released chemical weapons ????

how could you doubt that - you know exactly who gave it to them, the same people who gave them their weapons, intel and logistics !

[The Beast1]

(08-27-2013 08:08 AM)Marco Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:14 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:30 AM)Marco Wrote:  

Could it be that what US is doing is as plain as simple as a moral act? To save civilian population from mass murder?
You might call me naive and I am sure other interests and considerations exist but the main reason is to save innocent lives.

If that was the cause, we would have intervened in Darfur. The motives of our government are far from pure.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Irani...acks-Syria

They want Iran. American hegemony is threatened by Iran. The less the dollar is used as a reserve currency, the less power our government can control.

Interesting article.
In Drafur there was no chemical weapons. I dont have numbers in darfur but in Syria is over 100,000 casualties already.
I guess there are other motives but if Assad would not have use chemical weapons, probably no one would attack him.

There aren't any chemical weapons. Most likely tear gashttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/middleeast/syria.html?pagewanted=all

However, it's not the point. Iran is who we're really after.

[Seth_Rose]

(08-26-2013 04:55 PM)3extra Wrote:  

(08-26-2013 04:45 PM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

I doubt Assad has used chemical weapons. Why would he? He said himself it would be idiotic to use chemical weapons where his own soldiers are present. Also, the people reporting the use of chemical weapons are the rebels, so of course they're going to say that Assad was being a bad boy.

It is clear that Syria is a proxy war, similar to the ones fought in the past between USA vs. USSR. The US is now supporting the rebels and the Russians Assad. Do you think Obama or Putin give a flying fuck about the Syrian people? Hell no. It is simply a geo-strategic move for these countries to gain more ground in the mideast.



Look at these countries. You'll notice Syria and Saudi Arabia (read: Syria and Iran) are blue as there is no American military presence there. Is it a coincidence these are the two most likely targets of the American military... unlikely.

My prediction: The US will win out in Syria. Russia will back down and Assad will be booted. The US shall reign supreme. The reason for this is that now Russia is the major roadblock to US intervention. Russia will back down because they're not to worried about Syria, Iran is the big fish. With that said, since the US will get there way in Syria, they're going to have to let off on Iran. If you'll notice, after Ahmadinejad left, the US has cooled it with Iran and it will be that way for a few more years and then things will heat up again.

Should be interesting as to how this all plays out.

Saudi Arabia is red in that map mate. I think you may mean Iran? I certainly hope you do.

Ah yes, thanks for pointing that error out.

And to further confirm my theory, here's an article about a secret oil deal by the Saudi's asking Russia to back down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...Syria.html

What does Russia care about more: Syria or more oil money in their pockets...

I think American and allied intervention is imminent as others have pointed out.

[SexyBack]

All the theorycrafting about the other nations and their involvement might be stimulating and all, but at the end of the day, we NATO states will do what we deem is right by our morals. Russia, China, Iran or whoever can talk, warn and sabre rastle all day long, they're completely insignificant when the west consideres it's national security interests. They only weigh in on diplomacy because we don't want to upset everybody. What could Russia possibly do? Supply more new missiles and radar to Syria? Just to find out they're yet again completely inferior, either don't work, don't hit stuff and get taken out before they detect anything? There's no military balance of power in our world. The balance of power during the cold war was based on nuclear the deterrent and nothing else. NATO is 30-50 years ahead of everyone else in military technology. We designed so much good stuff in ww2 and korea, stole everything we could from the germans, including their scientists and ran with it. Every heavy mechanised armor and/or air engagement involing NATO armed forces in the last 40 years ended in an utter rout and obliteration of the non-NATO force. Recent tank battles have end with losses of 40-100 to NATOs 1. No military commander in the world believes they can stand up to NATO military might and even compete, let alone win.

It's pretty much in the worlds interest for no one to win the Syrian conflict, rather for all sides to accept there's no military gains to be made and join some kind of peace process. No one wants the islamic rebels in power and Assad, backed by Hisbollah and Iran has after recent events definitely become untenable. He's burnt those bridges, and then some. The democratic element of the rebels doesn't have enough backing from the population or enough people under arms to be the sole dominant force in the country. Too many countries are supporting too many different groups, some of which clearly are backed by terrorist elements.

So what needs to happen is everyone to place nice again. Go to germany, sit around some table. Take a bunch of our money. Make some kind of goverment of unity, be pretty ineffective for a couple of years, and let time heal wounds.

[3extra]

(08-27-2013 04:36 PM)SexyBack Wrote:  

All the theorycrafting about the other nations and their involvement might be stimulating and all, but at the end of the day, we NATO states will do what we deem is right by our morals.

[Cattle Rustler]

By all means, we should invade Reagan's grave.

He allowed Saddam to gas Iran with chemical weapons and did nothing about it. Saddam later sold such chem weapons to Syria. It's so funny to see how the US knew that Iraq had WMDs, because the US allowed Iraq to use them before.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...assed_iran

[Damedius]

(08-27-2013 05:11 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

By all means, we should invade Reagan's grave.

He allowed Saddam to gas Iran with chemical weapons and did nothing about it. Saddam later sold such chem weapons to Syria. It's so funny to see how the US knew that Iraq had WMDs, because the US allowed Iraq to use them before.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...assed_iran

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_tFKa2_YBQ

[Damedius]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

This article reminded me of this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn7d_a0pmio

[kbell]

I think Israel could survive without American tax money and support. With that support they have to endure these wasteful peace treaties with PA which don't result in any real changes. They would probably still get money and possible weapons from American Jews anyway. I also don't think this attack on Syria would benefit them either.