Syrian civil war thread

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

Yeah like it was really an "accident". 8)

Pretty much all countries have chemical/biological weapons, and many use them and test them out including Syria.

This does not surprise me at all.

 

[Wyld 4 X]

I'm looking for the blue turban man to emerge any day now...

 

[Belisarius]

In the Arab world, it seems one has to choose between secular dictatorial assholes, and Islamist dictatorial assholes; these guys really need a goddamned Switzerland or Sweden.

Obama painted himself into a corner with Syria, and that's that; at this point, whoever wins is going to wonder what the fuss over all the remaining wreckage and bodies was about.

 

[Cadamec]

Wasn't there a panel of "independent" scientists from several countries including Swiss, German, and French scientists who were going to evaluate the evidence and decide if chemical weapons were actually used? I have never heard anything about that report.

Why does the US have to lead a coalition if Syrian people need help? Obama also said something to the effect that he does not want to intervene in internal struggles in the region anymore. I agree that he should back peddle and say that his "red-line game changer" rhetoric was a personal statement, but he needs to do what the American people want. Instead of engaging in war or military aid without the direct consent of congress, he should throw it in their laps and let them vote on and approve any actions before he orders it.

African countries have been massacring their own for years, but the U.S. hasn't been involved militarily much in that region.

I am just sick and tired of war and paying for the U.S. to be the world's policeman and trying to impose it's way of life on other countries. However, I know there is no win/win to be had in these situations. Innocent people are getting killed. Doing nothing seems wrong. Doing something seems wrong. That is why U.S. presidents age so much during their tenure in office.


Obama 2008

Obama in 2016

 

[Joeof1]

They can't be morons because it obviously was their intention from the very beginning. The morons are the public for swallowing this continuing episode of middle eastern bullshit. Have people forgotten libya already? Send in MI6/CIA, stir shit up, declare the need for international involvement, engage the war machine... rinse and repeat. The major difference with syria is it has the potential to become a much wider conflict.

Sure you could say that, if you want to ignore the resulting fall out from this. My comment was more ot the fact that this is not going to end how they think it will.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Wasn't there a panel of "independent" scientists from several countries including Swiss, German, and French scientists who were going to evaluate the evidence and decide if chemical weapons were actually used? I have never heard anything about that report.[/IMG]

I'd be interested in that report.

Tangent time (since you've reminded me): The Swedes have previously investigated a war crime that was embarrassing to the West. It was in the middle of WWII. The Nazis had just overrun the part of Poland that they had previously split with the USSR. In the Katyn forest, they came upon mass graves: It turned out that the Soviets, upon invading Poland, had rounded up and shot the officers in the Polish army, about 12,000 or so that the Nazis could find.

The Nazis got a bunch of people together, including neutral countries like Sweden as well as a few Allied POWs, and started investigating (hey, it was the Nazis - this was great propaganda, and even had the benefit of being true). The Soviets lied and blamed the thousands of dead on the Germans. The UK and the US publicly agreed with the Soviet version - and even afterwards, when the Soviets overran the Nazis, the US sent their own investigator, who happened to agree with the Soviets. Privately, both the UK and the US seemed to think the Soviets were more than likely responsible.

And that's the "Greatest Generation". *sigh*

 

[BK Bonkey Kong]

^ We're talking about World War II. 12,000 military deaths is really not that many when you realize that Germany and Japan each caused 6,000,000 or more deaths with their war crimes. The estimate for total deaths in WWII is as high as 85,000,000. Before criticizing anyone for their actions, you must realize the gravity of the situation facing world leaders at the time.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

^ We're talking about World War II. 12,000 military deaths is really not that many when you realize that Germany and Japan each caused 6,000,000 or more deaths with their war crimes. The estimate for total deaths in WWII is as high as 85,000,000. Before criticizing anyone for their actions, you must realize the gravity of the situation facing world leaders at the time.

Yep. And if I was the leader of the US or the UK at that time, I may want to cover up the USSR's crimes. Even though Stalin was easily a mass-murdering asshole, he wasn't as bad as Hitler, and the population at large (especially at that time) really wants Saints and Sinners. The Nazis had to be the Sinners (and they were - to the tune of millions of people) and, more importantly, were Sinners who were bent on European domination. So the allies, including the USSR, had to be Saints.

It's pretty fucked up.

And it's similar to the Syrian situation. A lot of people need to think that the rebels are Saints and the pro-Assad forces are Sinners. But it's a lot more complicated.

I wish people could just grow up and realize that both sides are shades of gray, and we need to be backing whatever side is less gray and more white.

 

[Joeof1]

How is Hitler worse than Stalin?


"WE" do not need to be back anyone. "WE" as in you and me have no say in what goes on in Syria. I would rather that my tax dollars go to something more beneficial, like back into my pocket so I can re-invest as I desire.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

How is Hitler worse than Stalin?

Far greater tendency to wage a successful aggressive war on his neighbors. Maybe a higher body count as well, at least in the time period we're looking at.

"WE" do not need to be back anyone. "WE" as in you and me have no say in what goes on in Syria. I would rather that my tax dollars go to something more beneficial, like back into my pocket so I can re-invest as I desire.

Obviously you and I have different desires. For you, you would rather have a new iPhone or whatever you're buying with your cash. For me, if we can make a serious difference in Syria and greatly reduce the number of civilian deaths while expanding civil liberties for what is more or less a trivial amount of the US budget, I'm all for it.

 

[23536]

You can forget about expanding civil liberties.

 

[-=SS=-]

They can't be morons because it obviously was their intention from the very beginning. The morons are the public for swallowing this continuing episode of middle eastern bullshit. Have people forgotten libya already? Send in MI6/CIA, stir shit up, declare the need for international involvement, engage the war machine... rinse and repeat. The major difference with syria is it has the potential to become a much wider conflict.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/16/309276/uk-planned-war-on-syria-before-unrest/

A former French foreign minister says Britain had been planning a war against Syria some two years before to the unrest broke out in the Arab country.

The statement by Roland Dumas came during a recent interview with French Parliamentary TV network, LCP.

“I’m going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria,” said Dumas.

He continued by saying, “This was in Britain not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer minister for foreign affairs, if I would like to participate.”

====

There we have it. Pre-planned shit stirring by the UK/MI6, most likely with the help of the CIA and possibly MOSSAD too. Same old same old, rinse and repeat.

 

[Lazaraus45]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/06/16/309276/uk-planned-war-on-syria-before-unrest/
There we have it. Pre-planned shit stirring by the UK/MI6, most likely with the help of the CIA and possibly MOSSAD too. Same old same old, rinse and repeat.

MI6 wanted to enlist the help of someone who had not held a political position in over 20 years, who was often outspoken against western powers intervention in other countries in order to help overthrow the Syrian government, oh and he forgot to mention it until now. I'm skeptical

 

[-=SS=-]

MI6 wanted to enlist the help of someone who had not held a political position in over 20 years, who was often outspoken against western powers intervention in other countries in order to help overthrow the Syrian government, oh and he forgot to mention it until now. I'm skeptical

I wasn't suggesting MI6 were the ones mentioned in the article. What I ment was that MI6 are on the ground in the target nation long before things start appearing regulary on the mainstream news, such as with Libya and now with Syria. They have other functions of course, but like the CIA one purpose of theirs is to destabilize nations by aiding certain people or groups with money, weapons, intelligence, targeted killings, etc. He could have been approached by a wide variety of people from within the gov, intelligence, or military community.

 

[Ondine]

Obviously you and I have different desires. For you, you would rather have a new iPhone or whatever you're buying with your cash. For me, if we can make a serious difference in Syria and greatly reduce the number of civilian deaths while expanding civil liberties for what is more or less a trivial amount of the US budget, I'm all for it.

The difference between Randian and Humanitarian.


It's about as sticky as a situation can get, and just like Afghanistan and Iraq, setting up a stable, democratic government there afterwards is a total pipe dream. Still, what are the moral implications of not doing something. The U.S. is (at least it was) and should be viewed as a force for good in the world. In fact, I think that should even be a major concern for its citizens.

 

[Joeof1]

Far greater tendency to wage a successful aggressive war on his neighbors. Maybe a higher body count as well, at least in the time period we're looking at.

Technically even though those nations were part of the Soviet Union they were still his neighbors, so not sure I can agree with that. The body count could be close though. Not like the Soviets were keeping amazing records of who was where and who did what. The NAZI's were keeping better records of the Soviet military than the Soviets were.

Obviously you and I have different desires. For you, you would rather have a new iPhone or whatever you're buying with your cash. For me, if we can make a serious difference in Syria and greatly reduce the number of civilian deaths while expanding civil liberties for what is more or less a trivial amount of the US budget, I'm all for it.

iPhone? Really is that the best you can come up with? I can pretty much assure that although I likely make more money than just about everyone here, I spend far less of it on BS than the rest of you. The last thing I bought that wasn't food was a new PC about a month ago. Before that I bought a plane ticket to the Philippines last year to see my wife. I save my money and don't believe in BS notions like saving people by dropping fucking bombs on them and giving weapons to their enemies.

I think you don't understand that picking sides in any war in a foreign nation is not going to expand liberties for anyone, and a shit load of people are going to get killed because the US government is being lobbied to push for a war by both arm's contractors looking to make a fortune selling hardware, and commodity corporations looking at fresh potential markets for the raping.

Unless you are looking at a different universe where history is actually what they say in those High Schools texts and American Exceptional-ism is more than just a stupid catch phrase.

 

[BK Bonkey Kong]

There we have it. Pre-planned shit stirring by the UK/MI6, most likely with the help of the CIA and possibly MOSSAD too. Same old same old, rinse and repeat.

You're using Press TV, a network owned by the Iranian government, as proof? I'm not saying that this is completely improbable-- I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your source is. If you're at all familiar with the IRIB then you know that they are an absolute joke when it comes to providing accurate information.

 

[-=SS=-]

You're using Press TV, a network owned by the Iranian government, as proof? I'm not saying that this is completely improbable-- I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your source is. If you're at all familiar with the IRIB then you know that they are an absolute joke when it comes to providing accurate information.

No more ridiculous than trusting the BBC which is a UK gov source. Or CNN. Or any other big news agency. Makes little difference.. every single news outlet is controlled by someone and being slanted and infested with lies to suit someones agenda.

 

[alasdairm]

^ no more or less than your bluelight posts are slanted (and perhaps infested with lies) to suit your agenda.

single-sourcing news, regardless of that source, is a bad idea.

alasdair

 

[BK Bonkey Kong]

No more ridiculous than trusting the BBC which is a UK gov source. Or CNN. Or any other big news agency. Makes little difference.. every single news outlet is controlled by someone and being slanted and infested with lies to suit someones agenda.

Yeah... no. You're clearly not familiar with IRIB. The difference is that Iran does not allow foreign broadcasting within the country and uses its news agency to control its population. In London, you have the option to get your news from other sources if you want. Your government is not forbidding you from owning satellites, etc, and accessing any information from the outside world.