Syrian civil war thread

[DOB]

They still haven't established that this is an imminent threat to the US that requires the President to act without the approval of Congress. Kerry's credibility argument is baloney (I'm talking about the argument that the US places itself at risk by not acting because its credibility is lessened). They have to prove to the American people that it is at actual risk, not perceptual risk.

it isnt threat to us,and why would it even be needed to become threat to do something?

wtf,cruel psycho maniac dictator bombarding civilian hospitals thats good enough reason for any sane humane empathy able person

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWSOIXS5o3c

 

[23536]

it isnt threat to us,and why would it even be needed to become threat to do something?

Because while campaigning for the presidency, Obama said:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.

 

[Bardeaux]

i dont understand how anybody can be against military action.....

imagine if there was civil war in usa,yeah,your home not just some arab shithole you dont give fuck about,image that people will fight goverment for two three years with ar 15s,being slaughtered by all the gadgets of us army and the rest of the world will be like "help? nope,just die peasents"

Because many of us don't want our militaries to be used as the global police force. We're not talking about a genocidal regime trying to ethnically cleanse the population, we're talking about a civil war. The rebels consist of international cadres of Islamists and jihadi fighters, who are guilty of their own atrocities in this conflict. If they have the ability to start the conflict on their own, they can finish it. The US an it's allies are using this as a means to get another foothold in the region, Syria has been on the "axis of evil" hit list for a decade now, as was Libya. In trying to preempt the UN once more, the US is alienating many people from supporting military action.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... ya ain't gonna fool me again!

 

[Just A Guy]

Because many of us don't want our militaries to be used as the global police force. We're not talking about a genocidal regime trying to ethnically cleanse the population, we're talking about a civil war. The rebels consist of international cadres of Islamists and jihadi fighters, who are guilty of their own atrocities in this conflict. If they have the ability to start the conflict on their own, they can finish it. The US an it's allies are using this as a means to get another foothold in the region, Syria has been on the "axis of evil" hit list for a decade now, as was Libya. In trying to preempt the UN once more, the US is alienating many people from supporting military action.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... ya ain't gonna fool me again!

Well said.

 

[jpgrdnr]

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.

^ Horseshaw. The President has his or her authorization to use nuclear weapons with a confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. Let alone the power of signing off on a black op without the consent of government. I think "threat" is a very flexible term. Its nice and all that Obama can be diplomatic but he's got the world's largest military at his finger tips. If I were Assad I would not be sleeping well at all.

? I guess from the news clip the US has given the UN inspectators 48 hours to get out of the country?

 

[Just A Guy]

^ Horseshaw. The President has his or her authorization to use nuclear weapons with a confirmation by the Secretary of Defense. Let alone the power of signing off on a black op without the consent of government. I think "threat" is a very flexible term. Its nice and all that Obama can be diplomatic but he's got the world's largest military at his finger tips. If I were Assad I would not be sleeping well at all.

? I guess from the news clip the US has given the UN inspectators 48 hours to get out of the country?

Read up on the War Powers Resolution.

Also, there's the whole Defcon thing...

 

[jpgrdnr]

Read up on the War Powers Resolution.

Also, there's the whole Defcon thing...

Sure there's checks and balances in a traditional war, but that quote is plain wrong. It makes it sound like the President has no discretionary military power at all.

As an interesting aside:

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[11] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[12] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[13] and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[14][15]

 

[23536]

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

And Obama promptly wiped his ass with their rebuke.

 

[Just A Guy]

Sure there's checks and balances in a traditional war, but that quote is plain wrong. It makes it sound like the President has no discretionary military power at all.

As an interesting aside:

I agree with that statement.

The difference between going to war and authorizing an attack is that war is declared as a response to one nation attacking another nation. If the President authorizes the attack, it makes the United States the aggressor.

Syria is having a civil war. A new nation has not been formed within the original. Maybe if it had, we could ally ourselves, and then by treaty could defend our allies, if that were the case. Except it wouldn't be! Because al Nusra Front is affiliated with Al-Qaeda! That's the rebels. And the US is certainly not allied to Al-Qaeda, or Syria.

USA don't send your sons and daughters into this bloody mess on account of policy-makers' fucked up designs.

 

[Just A Guy]

And Obama promptly wiped his ass with their rebuke.

And both presidents Reagan and Clinton also violated War Powers Resolution.

 

[Corazon]

Why do you think intervention in Syria would lead to WWIII?

The purpose for regime change in Syria is to make it easier for regime change in Iran.

Iran is also the reason we changed the regimes in Egypt, Turkey, (and any other country that we just did regime change in over there that I haven't paid attention to), etc..


[side note- Turkey is a little more murky(oh shit that rhymed) as our agents sided with the opposite radical group than usual. That may have been just been a sign of how skilled we now are at regime change, that the specific pawns are meaningless(my guess as most probable) or it could have been a proxy war of sorts on the regime-change level(something which we need to expect as an eventual reality, but I doubt we have real competition). ]


So Iran is the objective and Syria is a stepping stone.
The regime change has been planned for a relatively long time, as has been catching Syria and the brutal Assad in the act of using WMDs if Syria (supported by Russia and the East) withstood the media and the terrorist agents destabilization efforts.

The WWIII part comes in because it is not clear whether the system can withstand the Western Powers aggressively changing all these regimes and changing Iran's regime.
Iran (and Syria (and the other regimes we've been changing) represent somewhat of a 'balance' of powers for the Eastern Powers. Iran is a nuclear power in the middle east for the Eastern Powers.
Syria is a Russian proxy state with a mid-level military, and a Russian naval port.

When the West takes these for themselves, Russia loses all those investments, and the Eastern Powers lose a significant amount of military leverage.

If the Eastern Powers can't withstand that aggression, they may HEAVILY support Iran (or even Syria). They may also pre-emptively strike (most probable would be striking Israel by way of Iran).

The end game is very hard to see.
The mass media for all sides never talks about the end game (and what they do talk about is fictional stories about the current goings ons that tend to confuse most everyday people), so the best you can do is look at the system and make guesses like I just tried to do.

 

[DOB]

Because many of us don't want our militaries to be used as the global police force. We're not talking about a genocidal regime trying to ethnically cleanse the population, we're talking about a civil war. The rebels consist of international cadres of Islamists and jihadi fighters, who are guilty of their own atrocities in this conflict. If they have the ability to start the conflict on their own, they can finish it. The US an it's allies are using this as a means to get another foothold in the region, Syria has been on the "axis of evil" hit list for a decade now, as was Libya. In trying to preempt the UN once more, the US is alienating many people from supporting military action.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... ya ain't gonna fool me again!

watch that vice report,look at that child with intestines just hanging out being helped by probably best person on earth a doctor that refused to leave a hospital witch look like ruin knowing its suicde that any moment another artillery might land tearing his body to thousands pieces in milisecond..... asad is huge motherfucker and needs to be killed asap

 

[DOB]

The purpose for regime change in Syria is to make it easier for regime change in Iran.

Iran is also the reason we changed the regimes in Egypt, Turkey, (and any other country that we just did regime change in over there that I haven't paid attention to), etc..


[side note- Turkey is a little more murky(oh shit that rhymed) as our agents sided with the opposite radical group than usual. That may have been just been a sign of how skilled we now are at regime change, that the specific pawns are meaningless(my guess as most probable) or it could have been a proxy war of sorts on the regime-change level(something which we need to expect as an eventual reality, but I doubt we have real competition). ]


So Iran is the objective and Syria is a stepping stone.
The regime change has been planned for a relatively long time, as has been catching Syria and the brutal Assad in the act of using WMDs if Syria (supported by Russia and the East) withstood the media and the terrorist agents destabilization efforts.

The WWIII part comes in because it is not clear whether the system can withstand the Western Powers aggressively changing all these regimes and changing Iran's regime.
Iran (and Syria (and the other regimes we've been changing) represent somewhat of a 'balance' of powers for the Eastern Powers. Iran is a nuclear power in the middle east for the Eastern Powers.
Syria is a Russian proxy state with a mid-level military, and a Russian naval port.

When the West takes these for themselves, Russia loses all those investments, and the Eastern Powers lose a significant amount of military leverage.

If the Eastern Powers can't withstand that aggression, they may HEAVILY support Iran (or even Syria). They may also pre-emptively strike (most probable would be striking Israel by way of Iran).

The end game is very hard to see.
The mass media for all sides never talks about the end game (and what they do talk about is fictional stories about the current goings ons that tend to confuse most everyday people), so the best you can do is look at the system and make guesses like I just tried to do.

wise words,I agree.... I am not like this super hippie conspiracy junkie,but I believe the WWIII might be knocking on door the russians are gonna be pissed off when west assrape asad

 

[Bardeaux]

watch that vice report,look at that child with intestines just hanging out being helped by probably best person on earth a doctor that refused to leave a hospital witch look like ruin knowing its suicde that any moment another artillery might land tearing his body to thousands pieces in milisecond..... asad is huge motherfucker and needs to be killed asap

And the rebels beheading priests and eating the beating hearts of their enemies? You're not going to find much moral high ground anywhere in this war. Besides, let us ponder... Assad is gone and the war is over. Now what? Is the US going to prop up and support the new islamist state they installed, or are we just going to go back in to remove them as well? Perhaps on the grounds of the new state using chemical weapons, or supporting terror cells or something.

 

[Joeof1]

War is not pretty and moral, not sure why people freak out about people getting killed in a particular way in the middle of a war zone, when all parties would do whatever it takes to kill the enemy or otherwise incapacitate them.

 

[SA]

Here we go. Green light.

It's been a slice!

 

[-=SS=-]

Besides, let us ponder... Assad is gone and the war is over. Now what? Is the US going to prop up and support the new islamist state they installed, or are we just going to go back in to remove them as well? Perhaps on the grounds of the new state using chemical weapons, or supporting terror cells or something.

Exactly. What do you think is going to happen to all those chemical weapons Assad has? Maybe even nuclear or biological weapons too? Unless we go in to secure them they will disappear and fall into the hands of mad people. Assad might be bad, but he is not mad. The rebel terrorist jihadi fucknuts are mad, and they're mad enough to bring them much closer to home. Ironically they're trying to persuade the Western public this is in our interest to slap Assad on the wrist when it could quite easily place our domestic security at risk, or that of our allies.

This is not even taking into account the possibility of Assad being attacked, then attacking Israel, and the whole thing getting way out of control. We've been living in the most stable period in human history, and like the American economical system, one should not assume it will last forever simply because they wish it too.

 

[dopemegently]

The cynic in me finds this really hard to believe. It just so happens that the BBC decides to cover this as MP's are voting for/against intervention? A rogue strike using napalm, for absolutely no reason? Again the cynic in me thinks this is highly suspicious.

I agree the fact they're showing the footage is suspicious; it seems they're trying to whip up public support for intervention. Had we voted to intervene, I wonder if their reportage would have the same tone?. as to whether the attacks occurred or not it's very hard to say, solid evidence is sketchy, there are too many factions with too many agendas fighting over there. Btw there have been reports of hundreds of European mercenaries fighting in Syria also.

The FSA versus the Syrian army is not the "good guys versus the bad guys", it's brutal over there; atrocities have been reported on both sides.

 

[puking]

This is way more interesting than Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Ossetia or any other war that I have seen in my lifetime. This situation has the potential of dragging the whole region to a very violent war. If attacked, Assad, the psychopath that he is, might fire against Jordan, Turkey and Israel (is almost 100% sure that he will attack Israel together with Hezbollah). Iran might get involved in a small scale too. Syria is not anything like Iraq or Afghanistan. They massive millitary forces, and although most of it is shitty, they have a few high quality weapons systems. They invested a lot in anti-aircraft defense and missiles. The long range missiles they have can inflict a tremendous damage on Israel, Turkey and Jordan urban centers. And the NATO forces have never dealt with the kind of air defense Syria has today. Also they have never attacked someone with so much allies like Syria (Russia China, Iran).

 

[Le'Mix]

WW3 is imminent. It had to happen some time, all the ingredients are now in place.

I'm saving a tin of beans a week from now on.

Davey Icke was right. Take cover and hold on to your knob and take out scrotum insurance, cos this is gonna get ugly. 8(