Although something needs to be done in Syria, going to war, or even just a quick missile strike in civilian filled areas, is the LAST thing the US needs right now. Especially when one of our staunchest allies for the last century refuses to go. And its a sad day when Putin, a left over of the Cold War era, has more sense than our elected President (though, I never voted for him and even said 5 years ago that he was just a politician who could give nice speeches).
The troops are exhausted and are still coming back from the Middle East where the last 10 years spent over there, have gone to waste. I feel for the Syrian rebels who (rightfully) fought back after getting hit by artillery fire for peaceful protests. But now? Now there are so many terrorist groups, Al Qaeda among them, that if we sent troops out there or anything else like that, it would be aiding the enemy we just spent 10 years and thousands of lives fighting. Let the UN do its job and let the hot head President cool off before he gets us dragged into another war.
Why make a threat if you're not going to stand by it? I thought Obama said chemical attacks on civilians would be met with a military response, not with a request to just give up the rest of the chemical weapons by some time next year.
mrswdk wrote:Why make a threat if you're not going to stand by it? I thought Obama said chemical attacks on civilians would be met with a military response, not with a request to just give up the rest of the chemical weapons by some time next year.
You have missed a far greater conundrum: why make a threat at all?
When will the U.S. learn that it has no special license to dictate what others can or can't do with their weapons? (Other that its fearsome power, but with regards to that power: a cornered dog becomes very dangerous, even if it's a small dog.)
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
juan, im little confused? If US so desperate to attack other country for "protection of Civilians", so why US not invade Somalia, why not send 150000 soldiers to end 20 years war there? Why are Syria important where 100000 people die, and Somalia not important where 500000 people die?
What Syria have , what Somalia dont have?
If US put all military effort on Somalia, they could save half milion of people, but they dont do nothing, and now after 2 years in Syria Civil War they want to protect "civilians"
And Somalia war still are ongoing, but US dont have any interest to protect civilians there,, why? Can someone explane this to me? What are happend, so that US change hes mind with Syria, but for Somalia they dont care at all? Double standards, or some hide interest?
Qwert wrote:juan, im little confused? If US so desperate to attack other country for "protection of Civilians", so why US not invade Somalia, why not send 150000 soldiers to end 20 years war there? Why are Syria important where 100000 people die, and Somalia not important where 500000 people die?
What Syria have , what Somalia dont have?
If US put all military effort on Somalia, they could save half milion of people, but they dont do nothing, and now after 2 years in Syria Civil War they want to protect "civilians"
And Somalia war still are ongoing, but US dont have any interest to protect civilians there,, why? Can someone explane this to me? What are happend, so that US change hes mind with Syria, but for Somalia they dont care at all? Double standards, or some hide interest?
Hidden interest - the extension of power in the Middle East.
Not that you care, but when President Bush (II) did this with the invasion of Iraq, the media and other politicians (especially those in the same party as our current president and including our current president) lambasted him.
I threw out Sudan as a possible humanitarian intervention as well. I have not received a response from the president's supporters as yet, but I'll keep trying.
Qwert wrote:juan, im little confused? If US so desperate to attack other country for "protection of Civilians", so why US not invade Somalia, why not send 150000 soldiers to end 20 years war there? Why are Syria important where 100000 people die, and Somalia not important where 500000 people die?
What Syria have , what Somalia dont have?
If US put all military effort on Somalia, they could save half milion of people, but they dont do nothing, and now after 2 years in Syria Civil War they want to protect "civilians"
And Somalia war still are ongoing, but US dont have any interest to protect civilians there,, why? Can someone explane this to me? What are happend, so that US change hes mind with Syria, but for Somalia they dont care at all? Double standards, or some hide interest?
Well, the US did pay the Ethiopian government to invade Somalia (during the mid 1990s, IIRC), so does that count??? I don't think it helped the situation though!
thegreekdog wrote:I have not received a response from the president's supporters as yet, but I'll keep trying.
The only response you're likely to receive is that we our lack of action in one area doesn't justify our lack of action in another. That isn't really an appropriate answer to the question, but that's because there is no answer to the question that paints their president in a good light.
Qwert wrote:juan, im little confused? If US so desperate to attack other country for "protection of Civilians", so why US not invade Somalia, why not send 150000 soldiers to end 20 years war there? Why are Syria important where 100000 people die, and Somalia not important where 500000 people die?
What Syria have , what Somalia dont have?
If US put all military effort on Somalia, they could save half milion of people, but they dont do nothing, and now after 2 years in Syria Civil War they want to protect "civilians"
And Somalia war still are ongoing, but US dont have any interest to protect civilians there,, why? Can someone explane this to me? What are happend, so that US change hes mind with Syria, but for Somalia they dont care at all? Double standards, or some hide interest?
Well, in Somalia the African Union is involved in establishing a stable government, so NATO and the US have kept out of it. Like you, I'm not in favor of this, but I understand it. Somolia is the size of France and everyone there is in favor of Sharia Law, so it's a real mess to try to take control of. There are half a dozen fractured forces all fighting, and the coast is just a pirate pool. In all frankness, the combatants there don't have any real reason to stop. Even with the AU involved, the various factions of militants still hold large swaths of territory, and it's unlikely that they will be defeated. It's different from Syria.
Syria doesn't have any resources or anything that we want to take. In Libya, we aided the rebels and then the big American oil corporations moved in to take over the production of the Libyan oil wells, but the oil is still stipend by OPEC. So you could say that America got some payback, and that would be a fair criticism, but OPEC still sets the rules. Maybe this could happen in Syria as well, but that requires the leap of faith that the Syrian people are dumb enough to let carpetbaggers take what they fought and died for. But what Syria does have is 2 million refugees living off of our allies. Humanitarianism isn't the main objective here. I'm not even pretending like it is. But ending the war could send those 2 million people home, and that would be humanitarian, and would please everyone. These refugee camps are simply colossal, and unfortunately, because there are so many Syrians outside of Syria, the fighting has spread to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.
The Syrian dictatorship would be easily defeated if we would stop Assad's technological advantages. Right now the rebels are increasingly successful, but the war is still a stalemate because of Assad's Russian weaponry, and because he enjoys international support. Grounding his jets and stopping his tanks would end the conflict, and therefor stabilize our allies' borders. It would also win us some friends in whatever government replaces the totalitarian one that exists now, provided that the FSA are able to hold free elections. The country has a solid infrastructure, with roads, energy, and educated labor, which is also important because it means that we wouldn't have to physically rebuild the country or invade it. If we invaded Sudan or Liberia, we would have to build everything, from roads to schools to factories, because they don't really have any. And we'd also have to find employment for 10 million people. We don't have to deal with that in Syria. And also unlike Somalia, there are only two factions fighting it out in Syria, and one side is pretty clearly the good side... and when they win, they'll turn the government over to the people. Hezbollah is also fighting for Assad, and they are getting some serious combat experience doing so, which is something Israel and others would like to curb. Excepting for the cost in Cruise Missiles, jet fuel, and international prestige, why shouldn't we help the people?
And these are all the reasons that my government has given me. But there is another, and that's basic human empathy and compassion. If Obama was bombing civilian hospitals in Illinois, you can be sure that our people would form some kind of armed resistance too. And like the Syrian people, we'd be wondering where in the hell the rest of the "enlightenment values" countries are and why the hell are they not helping us!? In Syria, the suffering population thinks that people like you and me don't care about them, and to be frank once again, I'm the only person in this thread who actually does care about the Syrian people. The rest of you want to let both sides fight it out to the death, or let the totalitarian government take control again.
EDIT: credit to that Kuwaiti guy and muy
Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I have not received a response from the president's supporters as yet, but I'll keep trying.
The only response you're likely to receive is that we our lack of action in one area doesn't justify our lack of action in another. That isn't really an appropriate answer to the question, but that's because there is no answer to the question that paints their president in a good light.
He's not my president. He's our president. This is your country too. al Qaeda doesn't give a f*ck who you voted for.
It's a pretty fair answer to the question, in that Syria and Sudan aren't the nearly same... are they? Besides, ya'll keep talking about Sudan, a conflict where the Russians kept pumping guns into the country by supplying both sides. Guess what they are doing in Syria? The Sudanese war ended while Bush was still president. How do you blame Obama for this? Because seriously, every president is different and should be judged accordingly. I don't understand why you guys think that people who voted for Obama are responsible for a war that officially ended like 10 years ago. I might as well take an equally ridiculous position and say Obama ended that war. Just because Clinton or Bush were silent on Sudan doesn't mean we should be silent on Syria. That's a lazy argument. Really though, I don't care for this argument. Sudan and Syria, Vietnam and Liberia, these are each entirely different animals and should not be generalized. You could do a lot better than to compare Syria to Sudan.
Not that you care, but when President Bush (II) did this with the invasion of Iraq, the media and other politicians (especially those in the same party as our current president and including our current president) lambasted him.
Not true, both parties and all major media outlets were in favor of invading Iraq. There was a patriotic fever after 9-11. Bush enjoyed overwhelming support from both houses, and the Supreme Court. The US media was in favor of invading Iraq. It was only years later that they turned against Bush, and today the public distrusts the major media outlets because of the way they were misled in 2003.
mrswdk wrote:Why make a threat if you're not going to stand by it? I thought Obama said chemical attacks on civilians would be met with a military response, not with a request to just give up the rest of the chemical weapons by some time next year.
You have missed a far greater conundrum: why make a threat at all?
When will the U.S. learn that it has no special license to dictate what others can or can't do with their weapons? (Other that its fearsome power, but with regards to that power: a cornered dog becomes very dangerous, even if it's a small dog.)
Did you really mean this the way that you wrote it? Over and again history repeats the lesson that standing back and watching only helps the oppressor.
WWII and Wounded Knee spring instantly to mind.
Anyway, I don't think you worded that to say what you meant.
Qwert wrote:juan, im little confused? If US so desperate to attack other country for "protection of Civilians", so why US not invade Somalia, why not send 150000 soldiers to end 20 years war there? Why are Syria important where 100000 people die, and Somalia not important where 500000 people die?
What Syria have , what Somalia dont have?
If US put all military effort on Somalia, they could save half milion of people, but they dont do nothing, and now after 2 years in Syria Civil War they want to protect "civilians"
And Somalia war still are ongoing, but US dont have any interest to protect civilians there,, why? Can someone explane this to me? What are happend, so that US change hes mind with Syria, but for Somalia they dont care at all? Double standards, or some hide interest?
Well, in Somalia the African Union is involved in establishing a stable government, so NATO and the US have kept out of it. Like you, I'm not in favor of this, but I understand it. Somolia is the size of France and everyone there is in favor of Sharia Law, so it's a real mess to try to take control of. There are half a dozen fractured forces all fighting, and the coast is just a pirate pool. In all frankness, the combatants there don't have any real reason to stop. Even with the AU involved, the various factions of militants still hold large swaths of territory, and it's unlikely that they will be defeated. It's different from Syria.
Syria doesn't have any resources or anything that we want to take. In Libya, we aided the rebels and then the big American oil corporations moved in to take over the production of the Libyan oil wells, but the oil is still stipend by OPEC. So you could say that America got some payback, and that would be a fair criticism, but OPEC still sets the rules. Maybe this could happen in Syria as well, but that requires the leap of faith that the Syrian people are dumb enough to let carpetbaggers take what they fought and died for. But what Syria does have is 2 million refugees living off of our allies. Humanitarianism isn't the main objective here. I'm not even pretending like it is. But ending the war could send those 2 million people home, and that would be humanitarian, and would please everyone. These refugee camps are simply colossal, and unfortunately, because there are so many Syrians outside of Syria, the fighting has spread to Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.
The Syrian dictatorship would be easily defeated if we would stop Assad's technological advantages. Right now the rebels are increasingly successful, but the war is still a stalemate because of Assad's Russian weaponry, and because he enjoys international support. Grounding his jets and stopping his tanks would end the conflict, and therefor stabilize our allies' borders. It would also win us some friends in whatever government replaces the totalitarian one that exists now, provided that the FSA are able to hold free elections. The country has a solid infrastructure, with roads, energy, and educated labor, which is also important because it means that we wouldn't have to physically rebuild the country or invade it. If we invaded Sudan or Liberia, we would have to build everything, from roads to schools to factories, because they don't really have any. And we'd also have to find employment for 10 million people. We don't have to deal with that in Syria. And also unlike Somalia, there are only two factions fighting it out in Syria, and one side is pretty clearly the good side... and when they win, they'll turn the government over to the people. Hezbollah is also fighting for Assad, and they are getting some serious combat experience doing so, which is something Israel and others would like to curb. Excepting for the cost in Cruise Missiles, jet fuel, and international prestige, why shouldn't we help the people?
And these are all the reasons that my government has given me. But there is another, and that's basic human empathy and compassion. If Obama was bombing civilian hospitals in Illinois, you can be sure that our people would form some kind of armed resistance too. And like the Syrian people, we'd be wondering where in the hell the rest of the "enlightenment values" countries are and why the hell are they not helping us!? In Syria, the suffering population thinks that people like you and me don't care about them, and to be frank once again, I'm the only person in this thread who actually does care about the Syrian people. The rest of you want to let both sides fight it out to the death, or let the totalitarian government take control again.
EDIT: credit to that Kuwaiti guy and muy
Frigidus wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I have not received a response from the president's supporters as yet, but I'll keep trying.
The only response you're likely to receive is that we our lack of action in one area doesn't justify our lack of action in another. That isn't really an appropriate answer to the question, but that's because there is no answer to the question that paints their president in a good light.
He's not my president. He's our president. This is your country too. al Qaeda doesn't give a f*ck who you voted for.
It's a pretty fair answer to the question, in that Syria and Sudan aren't the nearly same... are they? Besides, ya'll keep talking about Sudan, a conflict where the Russians kept pumping guns into the country by supplying both sides. Guess what they are doing in Syria? The Sudanese war ended while Bush was still president. How do you blame Obama for this? Because seriously, every president is different and should be judged accordingly. I don't understand why you guys think that people who voted for Obama are responsible for a war that officially ended like 10 years ago. I might as well take an equally ridiculous position and say Obama ended that war. Just because Clinton or Bush were silent on Sudan doesn't mean we should be silent on Syria. That's a lazy argument. Really though, I don't care for this argument. Sudan and Syria, Vietnam and Liberia, these are each entirely different animals and should not be generalized. You could do a lot better than to compare Syria to Sudan.
Not that you care, but when President Bush (II) did this with the invasion of Iraq, the media and other politicians (especially those in the same party as our current president and including our current president) lambasted him.
Not true, both parties and all major media outlets were in favor of invading Iraq. There was a patriotic fever after 9-11. Bush enjoyed overwhelming support from both houses, and the Supreme Court. The US media was in favor of invading Iraq. It was only years later that they turned against Bush, and today the public distrusts the major media outlets because of the way they were misled in 2003.
Very graphic, but honest -
part 7
Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia. Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate? Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.
Juan_Bottom wrote:It's a pretty fair answer to the question, in that Syria and Sudan aren't the nearly same... are they? Besides, ya'll keep talking about Sudan, a conflict where the Russians kept pumping guns into the country by supplying both sides. Guess what they are doing in Syria? The Sudanese war ended while Bush was still president. How do you blame Obama for this? Because seriously, every president is different and should be judged accordingly. I don't understand why you guys think that people who voted for Obama are responsible for a war that officially ended like 10 years ago. I might as well take an equally ridiculous position and say Obama ended that war. Just because Clinton or Bush were silent on Sudan doesn't mean we should be silent on Syria. That's a lazy argument. Really though, I don't care for this argument. Sudan and Syria, Vietnam and Liberia, these are each entirely different animals and should not be generalized. You could do a lot better than to compare Syria to Sudan.
If the stated point of intervening in Syria is for humanitarian reasons, then my question would not be limited to Sudan vs. Syria? I know one cannot generalize one internal conflict over another; I'm sure there are reasons why we would or would not be involved in a conflict in Indonesia or Liberia. What I want to understand is why the humanitarian intervention in Syria is more important or less risky than in another country. This has not been explained to me in any way (satisfactorily or not).
According to the United Nations, the following are current conflicts in which there are more than 1,000 deaths per year: - Colombia - Afghanistan - Somalia - Yemen - Pakistan - Mexico - Sudan - Iraq - Egypt
Of these, it appears that Syria has had the most fatalities so far this year. In 2012, the list was led by Mexico (the drug war) and Syria.
President Obama has been president since 2008. The Sudanese conflict has been active since 2009. The Somali wars continue. The Syrian conflict began in 2011. It is currently 2013 and, to my knowledge, we have not been actively involved in any of these conflicts, including Syria (which begs the "why now?" question on Syria, but I'll defer on that).
I'd like to see some discussion from the president or his supporters (with respect to his particular issue) on why Syria and not elsewhere or some acknowledgement from the president that Syria is more important because of its location the world. If the president does acknowledge that Syria is more important because of location, then I'd also like him to indicate some walkback of his critique of President Bush's war in Iraq given the adamant nature in which he criticized that war.
thegreekdog wrote: What I want to understand is why the humanitarian intervention in Syria is more important or less risky than in another country. This has not been explained to me in any way (satisfactorily or not).
According to the United Nations, the following are current conflicts in which there are more than 1,000 deaths per year: - Colombia - Afghanistan - Somalia - Yemen - Pakistan - Mexico - Sudan - Iraq - Egypt
Of these, it appears that Syria has had the most fatalities so far this year. In 2012, the list was led by Mexico (the drug war) and Syria.
President Obama should probably consider intervening in the United States where the daily average is 50 violent deaths (it's 150 in Syria) and 9,000 gun deaths annually.
Where's this box in the poll? □ Assassinate the President and install a puppet regime like in the good old days.
thegreekdog wrote: What I want to understand is why the humanitarian intervention in Syria is more important or less risky than in another country. This has not been explained to me in any way (satisfactorily or not).
According to the United Nations, the following are current conflicts in which there are more than 1,000 deaths per year: - Colombia - Afghanistan - Somalia - Yemen - Pakistan - Mexico - Sudan - Iraq - Egypt
Of these, it appears that Syria has had the most fatalities so far this year. In 2012, the list was led by Mexico (the drug war) and Syria.
President Obama should probably consider intervening in the United States where the daily average is 50 violent deaths (it's 150 in Syria) and 9,000 gun deaths annually.
Where's this box in the poll? □ Assassinate the President and install a puppet regime like in the good old days.
In wikipedia write that every year in US been 14700 intentional homicides and in Syria Civil War for two year are been killed overal 100000 people ( now we dont know how much are intentional homicides, and how much been KIA)
saxitoxin wrote:Syria "Expert" Cited by Kerry, McCain Lied About Doctorate
During last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible military strikes against Syria, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) read from an “important op-ed by Dr. Elizabeth O’Bagy,” whom he described as a “Syria analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.” That group fired O'Bagy Wednesday after learning she had falsely claimed she holds a Ph.D.
Elizabeth O'Baggy was cited by Kerry-McCain as a "Syria expert" despite being 26 years old, having only been to the Levant once in her life, not speaking Arabic, and having lied about her Ph.D. One of her wild claims was that the rebels are a pro-democracy group of peace protesters - the same bizarre, unhinged assertion made by JB.
Team Assad bombed Syria into oblivion.
This is essentially Reductio ad Hitlerum, except Kerry is Hitler to you. Or I'm Hitler to you.... well, anyone who disagrees with your character is Hitler to you.
I never cited this person as an expert. Like I said in the Bengahzi thread, I interviewed Syrians for my website, and that and listening to NPR for two years are what influenced me the most. And then, a healthy understanding of History. Your idea that the Syrian people need a President-for-life who's willing to murder them all to hold onto power is absurd, because it's based on this idea that only an enslaved Syria can free Palestine. I consider the stupidity of that to be self-evident. Assad gleaned $150billion dollars from Syria's resources and funneled it into private bank accounts for himself. Meanwhile Syria is running out of it's natural resources, and the people there live on average, less than $100(US) a month. So the people peacefully petitioned for more freedom, and Assad murdered them in the streets for it. He sent tanks and soldiers and armored cars against civilians armed with picket signs and chants. And then you act like Obama is the bad guy when he gives the people guns to fight back with, and Assad is a folk hero for offering "to share power" after the oppressed rose against him in a fiery rage. Obama can be no worse for this situation than George Washington was. Assad does not strengthen Syria, he weakens it. This Civil War is entirely his fault. He adds nothing to Syria's health and takes everything he wants. He is an Oligarchical parasite. He is exactly the same kind of parasite that you would lambast back when you first appeared on CC as the Olden-Timey German man who was some kind of Communist-Anarchist. Your character has changed, Bro. Thus began the era of Dark Saxi.
\"
What does this rambling speech about George Washington have to do with the Huffington Post reporting your side got their information from a 26 year old who lied about having a Ph.D.?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
Hasbara e-activist Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom is continuing to regurgitate Israel's talking points regarding the removal of Bashar Assad - who has a higher approval rating in Syria than Obama does in the U.S. - reports Jonathan Cook, winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen. According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering the clamour for a US military response.
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”
This is what Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom wants Americans to risk their lives for (but not him - he's volunteered to protect the Orange Julius counter at Mall of America) ... a war based on:
1 - the ranting of a 26 year old woman who lied about her Ph.D., doesn't speak Arabic and has only been to the Levant once (on a package tour) 2 - Israeli intelligence reports
sounds at least as legit as Iraq
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote:Hasbara e-activist Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom is continuing to regurgitate Israel's talking points regarding the removal of Bashar Assad - who has a higher approval rating in Syria than Obama does in the U.S. - reports Jonathan Cook, winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen. According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering the clamour for a US military response.
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”
This is what Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom wants Americans to risk their lives for (but not him - he's volunteered to protect the Orange Julius counter at Mall of America) ... a war based on:
1 - the ranting of a 26 year old woman who lied about her Ph.D. and doesn't speak Arabic 2 - Israeli intelligence reports
sounds at least as legit as Iraq
Please do continue to ignore the U.N. report on the August 21 attack.
saxitoxin wrote:Hasbara e-activist Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom is continuing to regurgitate Israel's talking points regarding the removal of Bashar Assad - who has a higher approval rating in Syria than Obama does in the U.S. - reports Jonathan Cook, winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.
President Barack Obama may have drawn his seemingly regretted “red line” around Syria’s chemical weapons, but it was neither he nor the international community that turned the spotlight on their use. That task fell to Israel.
It was an Israeli general who claimed in April that Damascus had used chemical weapons, forcing Obama into an embarrassing demurral on his stated commitment to intervene should that happen. According to the Israeli media, it was also Israel that provided the intelligence that blamed the Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, for the latest chemical weapons attack, near Damascus on August 21, triggering the clamour for a US military response.
In his interview published yesterday by the Jerusalem Post, Michael Oren claimed that Israel had in fact been trying to oust Assad since the civil war erupted more than two years ago. He said Israel “always preferred the bad guys [jihadist groups] who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys [the Assad regime] who were backed by Iran.”
This is what Juan "Kill All Palestinians" Bottom wants Americans to risk their lives for (but not him - he's volunteered to protect the Orange Julius counter at Mall of America) ... a war based on:
1 - the ranting of a 26 year old woman who lied about her Ph.D. and doesn't speak Arabic 2 - Israeli intelligence reports
sounds at least as legit as Iraq
Please do continue to ignore the U.N. report on the August 21 attack.
I read the OCPW report and didn't see where it said "the FSA are valiant freedom fighters as Israeli intelligence and a 26 year-old woman who lied about her Ph.D. and doesn't speak Arabic have claimed - not a murderous band of thugs, terrorists and religious nutjobs hated by the majority of the Syrian people."
Obviously you should correct me if I missed a page and it did, in fact, say that.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
saxitoxin wrote: -Assad's most recent approval ratings at 55%.
This is a ridiculous statement. This was not an approval rating poll. This was a poll on whether Assad should remain as leader. There's a critical difference because "[o]ne of the main reasons given by those wanting the president to stay in power was fear for the future of the country." Or, as the Guardian's writer puts it, they are "motivated by fear of civil war." That poll was taken in January 2012. I don't think anyone doubts that civil war has, in fact, now happened in Syria. Please try again with statistics that aren't incredibly obsolete.
When Arabs do it they're "exploiting civilians for propaganda value" because they're not as civilized and don't place the same value on human life. -->
As the Obama administration tries to prod Congress into backing armed action against Syria, the regime in Damascus is hiding military hardware and shifting troops out of bases into civilian areas.
When white people do it, it's just ... well, no need to explain, it's just okay! Hey, they're white! We already know they're civilized and respect human life! -->
Qwert wrote:Then Organisation of islamic countries need to be involved, like African Union involve in Somalia? This its for me very logical solution, after all this its hes neigbours,, so US and UN can also be out ,like they out of Somalia. Sudan war are finished, when one country dissolute ,and create two independent states,, are you want to say that Syria also need to be separate? Also notice that you realy belive that in Syria fight two side >Goverment vs FSA Well i read many things that on rebels side are Al-Quaida and other very religious islamic groups who are for Syria to be Very islamic country.
I agree with you that some sort of coalition of neighboring countries would be the best to intervene in Syria, but in practical terms it's not possible. That's why Syria's neighbors put pressure on us to do it. Turkey and Jordon are trying to avoid a regional conflict, and have given temporary asylum to refugees. It's a similar situation in Lebanon, I think. Fights have already spilled across into Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan anyway. Obviously the Israelis can't enter Syria, because literally everyone there hates them. Iraq has never had a good relationship with Assad, but is in no shape to fight anyone. Nevertheless, Syrian rebels have been crossing the border there pretty regularly. Egypt is still struggling with the aftermath of it's own Spring. It can't even set up it's own government. And finally Iran is supporting Assad, but they don't share a border so luckily military intervention is impossible for them.
This leaves NATO, Russia, and the United States. As for Russia, they have a military base in Syria, and they hold $150billion of Assad's personal wealth in private bank accounts. They also sell something like a gazillion dollars worth of weapons to Syria every year. I don't feel that their motivations for supporting the Syrian president-for-life are good ones. It's usually a bad sign when your partner has a title like "President-for-life." But if your country wants to do the right thing, and broker/force peace in Syria, then I would cheer you guys on instead of my government.
This is the price we pay for being the only superpower.
Yes, I do really believe the fight is two-sided. The FSA outnumber Assad's army, and they outnumber all of the various Islamic groups. Each of the groups are cooperating, because they have the same goal, and that is to remove Assad from power. Once that happens, then the various factions with start negotiating with each other or fighting. Here's the hitch; we've all sat on our asses watching Assad murder his people. The FSA never had enough weapons or training to stop him, so they were stuck heplessly watching Assad murder his people too. So when these other groups started showing up, like al-Nustra, many members of the FSA joined them. This is because these other groups were better funded, and that meant that anyone who joined them would be given a weapon and sent to fight. It's our fault that we did not defend the Syrian people when they needed us, and our inaction allowed these religious nutters to co-opt the fight.
But the Syrian people themselves are still moderates. And the FSA still outnumbers everyone else. There's no reason to believe that al-Qaeda will come to power in Syria, if we aid the FSA. Remember on page one of this thread that Kuwait1961 warned us that if we did not get involved, things would get worse. This is sort of what he was talking about. You do not want the FSA to have to share victory with al-Qaeda. Everyone is on the same page now, but after Assad falls that could change. al-Qaeda will never win over the Syrian people, but they could make things impossible for the new Democratic Syrian government and it's neighbor, Israel.
Syria should never be split apart. Assad should not be allowed to rule anywhere.
I think that the evidence clearly shows that a single one of Assad's generals did order the strike, but also that Assad was not consulted. So Assad was responsible, and he's a damned liar, but he did not personally order the attack. His strategy at the time was to sit tight, because the rebels did not have any global support.
