Conquer Club

List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do You Support Military Action in Syria?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:41 am

I've actually mentioned FSA war crimes a half of a dozen times in this very thread. I was the one who brought them up. You can read the list on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Liveleak is banned on Conquerclub because the website contains gore and porn. It's a bannable offense, ask pimpdave. Also, liveleak is in no-way accredited, and the videos labeled "FSA" probably aren't legit. Saxi trie to post this stuff earlier, but there's no evidence that the FSA did that stuff anymore than there's proof that you did it. You can't just post videos from some truther website and expect us to take them seriously as evidence. There are dozens of journalists in Syria and the surrounding countryside right now. Post a video from the BBC from 2013.


You should double check your sources here, bucko, before you start talking down on people.


As for the rest;
Colonel Riyad al Assad hasn't been in charge of the FSA since 2012, after they reorganized their leadership. That was around the time that al Nusra started kidnapping FSA members and openly fighting with them. YOUR OWN SOURCE says that the cooperation happened before the restructuring. After the FSA changed leadership, it's just been an easy peace between them and a begrudging respect. You haven't paid attention to anything that I've said, you only waited for a supposed opening to attack. Everyone in the West is so desperate to believe that Syria is the same as Afghanistan.



al Nusra wrote:In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant [Syria], the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions [Al Sahaba Battalion], carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012.


http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-ma ... z2dQSwhREW

Their cooperation was in 2012, before the restructuring and before Colonel Riyad al Assad lost authority.



Also, even if the FSA worked with al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda, it wouldn't bother me so much. The reality is that al-Nusra and al-Qaeda are better armed than the FSA... and Assad has been torturing their people for decades at the behest of the USA and others. What matters is that we aid the FSA so that they will be the ones who end up in power after Assad falls, because they're the non sectarian, non religious, pro-democracy group. The FSA and al-Nusra share the same immediate goal of toppling Assad, but after that happens, yes, there will be fighting between them. There is fighting now.
Al-Nusra Front has been a great help to Syrian rebels in the Battle of Aleppo. One rebel said that members of the group "rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them [...] They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo". He added: "The only thing is that they are too radical".[28] After the US designated al-Nusra Front as a terror group, a Free Syrian Army (FSA) leader in Aleppo berated the move and a FSA spokesman in Aleppo said "We might not share the same beliefs as Jabhat al-Nusra, but we are fighting the same enemy".[61]
However, some rebels are worried by their extreme beliefs and tactics.[19][28] The FSA has consistently condemned al-Nusra Front's use of suicide bombs.[28] It accuses al-Nusra Front and others of "hijacking a revolution that began as an uprising to demand a democratic system".[19] The leader of a rebel group in Idlib Province said "We are not fighting Bashar al-Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison".[19] A "senior political official" of the FSA said "Their presence is reducing the popular support that we desperately need in areas where we operate [...] I appreciate their motives for coming to Syria. We cannot deny Muslims their right to jihad, but we want them to leave".[28] In some parts of Syria, "Jihadist and secular rebel groups watch each other's military bases warily, unclasping the safety catches on their guns as they pass".[19] Some members of the FSA believe that, after the Assad government has been overthrown, the next war will be between the FSA and the Islamists.[19]



The base was first besieged by a Free Syrian Army brigade called North Storm, and joined by fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and a group calling itself Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar. Muhajireen means emigrants, and the group, which carried out several suicide attacks at the base, is led by Russian speakers from Chechnya and other parts of the Caucasus.


Suicide attacks are not a war crime.
The article does not say that Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar is a terrorist group. I can't even find anything on their political goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_al-M ... _wal-Ansar
Then:

Mr. Farzat said Chechen Islamist fighters near the airport had refused to let the defecting government soldiers flee, so he helped them escape by another route.

The cooperation immediately ended. It didn't go any farther than "joining" after the assault started?
The FSA isn't going to be caught up in aiding al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, because they are trying to get the international community to come to Syria and help them. Just because these guys are all Muslims does not mean that they are all working together for Sharia law or that they are as dumb as a box of hammers. Your sources aren't legit. You're a year behind.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:42 am

When did Frig become a Libertarian?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:47 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since the gallup polls shows Americans largely not favoring a war with Syria, and assuming that they will vote for politicians who would also vote against declaring war against Syria, then the citizens of UK need not worry. Of course, the president is another matter since he can arbitrarily declare war without congresional approval.

The UK Parliament has definitely annoyed the US president, but that's a good thing.


It's not a "war with Syria." Obama all but said that the Administration planned to arm a limited number of hand-selected FSA members and carry out Tomahawk attacks on Assad's military infrastructure. No invasions.
It's a defensive action to protect Syrian civilians and allow the FSA a fair fight against the Syrian army and Hezbollah. It's exactly the same thing that France did for us in 1776 when they ended the British Blockade.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Frigidus on Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:01 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:When did Frig become a Libertarian?


I wasn't aware that progressives were big on war.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:38 am

Going to War Because of Syrian Rebel Claims - Part 1

2011: For 2 months world opinion is rallied by the touching story of "Gay Girl in Damascus" who blogs about the horrors she's witnessing in Syria and whose story is well relatable by the west thanks to her perfect English. People call for war against Assad and "Gay Girl in Damascus" dominates the headlines for weeks - CNN, the New York Times and NPR chronicle Gay Girl's struggles. It turns out "Gay Girl" is a 40 year-old, mentally ill American man living in the UK. (BBC)

2012: The grandly named "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" - the primary source of the CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. - turns out to be an anti-Assad activist operating out of in a 1-bedroom apartment in Britain. (New York Times)

2012:Rebels claim they've formed a "Special Forces" unit and show a YouTube video - their supporters salivate. The video is exposed as one, of many, rebel fakes. (New York Times)

2012: Rebels release a video claiming to show a man "buried alive" by Syrian soldiers. U.S. media run with the story - foreign press are more cautious. The YouTube video, after analysis, is determined to have "serious grounds for doubt about its authenticity." (Storyful)

more examples of deception and fakery to follow in subsequent installments ...

[Fast Forward to 2013] YouTube videos of chemical weapons - Barack McCain declares he can't wait for the UN verification mission to complete and must shoot first, ask questions later - declares they have "sure-fire intel" ... just like 2003 ...

Image
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:48 am

saxitoxin wrote:more examples of deception and fakery to follow in subsequent installments ...


Image

GLaDOS: Look, you're wasting your time. And, believe me, you don't have a whole lot left to waste. What's your point, anyway? *Survival?* Well, then, the last thing you want to do is hurt me. I have your brain scanned and permanently backed-up in case something terrible happens to you, which it's just about to. Don't believe me? Here, I'll put you on:
Strange voice: Hellooooooooo!
GLaDOS: That's you! That's how dumb you sound! You've been wrong about every single thing you've ever done, including this thing. You're not smart. You're not a scientist. You're not a doctor. You're not even a full-time employee! Where did your life go so wrong?



--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:02 pm

STOP THE WAR! UPDATE #2

Across the world, people in the hundreds of thousands continue to protest the American War Against Syria. The only scenes of support for intervention are elderly men in suits standing behind podiums ...

1. U.S. releases its "proof" - a 3.5 page "analysis" that makes fact-framed statements - but provides no testimony, chemical analysis, or anything else to support those "facts" ... except "hundreds of YouTube videos" [?!], "past Syrian practice" and statements by supposed "NGO medical personnel" who are unnamed and unidentified (!!!). This is significantly less effort than was even put into manufacturing the Iraq war evidence. Guess it's because of the U.S. Labour Day holiday.

2. In Jerusalem, a vigil against the American War Against Syria was hosted at the Church of the Resurrection - the site of the crucifixion of Jesus - by the Eastern Orthodox custodians of the Sepulchre. Palestinian Christians attending the ceremony enthusiastically chanted the Syrian Unity slogan - "God, Syria, Bashar, and nothing else!"



3. In New York, some people couldn't wait for the official start of the 53-city nationwide protest against the War - 300 people staged an impromptu demonstration in Times Square waving Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian flags. They were met by 12 (!!!) dispirited pro-intervention demonstrators waving the French colonial flags used by the FSA. They were kept behind a steel gate by police as they yelled "bitch!" and "whore!" at women who were participating in the Anti-War march.



4. Even though a victory has been scored in Britain, organizers plan to go ahead with mass demonstrations to deal a death blow to Barack McCain's global reputation. Meanwhile, Anti-War protests have broken out in Greece, Turkey, France and more.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby AndyDufresne on Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:56 pm

saxitoxin wrote:STOP THE WAR! UPDATE #2


Image

GLaDOS: When I said "deadly neurotoxin," the "deadly" was in massive sarcasm quotes. I could take a bath in this stuff. Put it on cereal, rub it right into my eyes. Honestly, it's not deadly at all... to *me*. You, on the other hand, are going to find its deadliness... a lot less funny.



--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:12 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:I've actually mentioned FSA war crimes a half of a dozen times in this very thread. I was the one who brought them up. You can read the list on Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Liveleak is banned on Conquerclub because the website contains gore and porn. It's a bannable offense, ask pimpdave. Also, liveleak is in no-way accredited, and the videos labeled "FSA" probably aren't legit. Saxi trie to post this stuff earlier, but there's no evidence that the FSA did that stuff anymore than there's proof that you did it. You can't just post videos from some truther website and expect us to take them seriously as evidence. There are dozens of journalists in Syria and the surrounding countryside right now. Post a video from the BBC from 2013.


You should double check your sources here, bucko, before you start talking down on people.


As for the rest;
Colonel Riyad al Assad hasn't been in charge of the FSA since 2012, after they reorganized their leadership. That was around the time that al Nusra started kidnapping FSA members and openly fighting with them. YOUR OWN SOURCE says that the cooperation happened before the restructuring. After the FSA changed leadership, it's just been an easy peace between them and a begrudging respect. You haven't paid attention to anything that I've said, you only waited for a supposed opening to attack. Everyone in the West is so desperate to believe that Syria is the same as Afghanistan.



al Nusra wrote:In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant [Syria], the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions [Al Sahaba Battalion], carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012.


http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-ma ... z2dQSwhREW

Their cooperation was in 2012, before the restructuring and before Colonel Riyad al Assad lost authority.



Also, even if the FSA worked with al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda, it wouldn't bother me so much. The reality is that al-Nusra and al-Qaeda are better armed than the FSA... and Assad has been torturing their people for decades at the behest of the USA and others. What matters is that we aid the FSA so that they will be the ones who end up in power after Assad falls, because they're the non sectarian, non religious, pro-democracy group. The FSA and al-Nusra share the same immediate goal of toppling Assad, but after that happens, yes, there will be fighting between them. There is fighting now.
Al-Nusra Front has been a great help to Syrian rebels in the Battle of Aleppo. One rebel said that members of the group "rush to the rescue of rebel lines that come under pressure and hold them [...] They know what they are doing and are very disciplined. They are like the special forces of Aleppo". He added: "The only thing is that they are too radical".[28] After the US designated al-Nusra Front as a terror group, a Free Syrian Army (FSA) leader in Aleppo berated the move and a FSA spokesman in Aleppo said "We might not share the same beliefs as Jabhat al-Nusra, but we are fighting the same enemy".[61]
However, some rebels are worried by their extreme beliefs and tactics.[19][28] The FSA has consistently condemned al-Nusra Front's use of suicide bombs.[28] It accuses al-Nusra Front and others of "hijacking a revolution that began as an uprising to demand a democratic system".[19] The leader of a rebel group in Idlib Province said "We are not fighting Bashar al-Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison".[19] A "senior political official" of the FSA said "Their presence is reducing the popular support that we desperately need in areas where we operate [...] I appreciate their motives for coming to Syria. We cannot deny Muslims their right to jihad, but we want them to leave".[28] In some parts of Syria, "Jihadist and secular rebel groups watch each other's military bases warily, unclasping the safety catches on their guns as they pass".[19] Some members of the FSA believe that, after the Assad government has been overthrown, the next war will be between the FSA and the Islamists.[19]



The base was first besieged by a Free Syrian Army brigade called North Storm, and joined by fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and a group calling itself Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar. Muhajireen means emigrants, and the group, which carried out several suicide attacks at the base, is led by Russian speakers from Chechnya and other parts of the Caucasus.


Suicide attacks are not a war crime.
The article does not say that Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar is a terrorist group. I can't even find anything on their political goals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_al-M ... _wal-Ansar
Then:

Mr. Farzat said Chechen Islamist fighters near the airport had refused to let the defecting government soldiers flee, so he helped them escape by another route.

The cooperation immediately ended. It didn't go any farther than "joining" after the assault started?
The FSA isn't going to be caught up in aiding al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, because they are trying to get the international community to come to Syria and help them. Just because these guys are all Muslims does not mean that they are all working together for Sharia law or that they are as dumb as a box of hammers. Your sources aren't legit. You're a year behind.



You're still failing to understand the following:

The main point is that it is not at all clear how many acts of terrorism are committed by the FSA or the "FSA." What is clear is that there is no such thing as a distinct group called the Free Syrian Army, which also has a distinct goal of which its members actively pursue (democracy) with the same means (non-terrorism).

Also, your post doesn't reject the definite possibility that elements of FSA still coordinate attacks and exchange resources with other terrorist groups, and that x-amount of elements within FSA are radical Islamic.

You'll very likely continue to filter out the disreputable aspects of the FSA in order to maintain this vision of a Good FSA (or you'll significantly discount such aspects, which you have been doing when you recently discovered Syria's existence). It's not reasonable.

That withstanding my other points still hold, which you've yet to refute, so I can see that no amount of opening you to new approaches of understanding will be taken. Good luck, JB.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:42 pm

Well, the Obama administration offered as "proof" that Assad carried out the chemical attacks by citing 100 youtube videos. It is the administrations belief that the rebels could not have fabricated that many videos, so it must have been Assad. That's the extent of the "evidence" that Assad ordered the attack carried out by the Syrian government.

However, in actual interviews with residents of Ghouta a different story emerges. It's become aware that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia (Saud intelligence chief) has provided chemical weapons to militant group Jabhat al-Nusra (which is linked to Al Qaida). Jabhat al-Nusra was storing these weapons in tunnels in East Ghouta while they barracked mosques and private houses.

Residents have said that this militant group mishandled the weapons and set them off by mistake killing a number of rebel fighters there in the tunnels.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-3 ... al-attacks

While the US says Assad carried out the attacks, citing youtube as evidence, what has never been answered is-
What chemical weapons exactly were used?
How were the chemical weapons delivered in the attack?
What is the motive for Assad to use such weapons right after a UN team has arrived in Syria to inspect said weapons?

This is more and more likely a false flag attack, whether by accident or calculated move by certain rebel factions, the incident is being used to attempt to drag the US into the conflict.

In the meantime, Obama claims the upcoming US attacks on Syria (an act of war, no way to say it isn't), will be limited. But here's the catch. A nation that perpetrates an act of war upon another nation doesn't get to decide how long or how wide that war becomes.
If Obama strikes Syria, Syria is well within her rights under international law to strike back at the US. At her military bases in the region, Washington, the Pentagon and other valid military targets anywhere in the world. If Syria did such a thing, what would become of Obama's "limited action" promise?
Or if Syria or her allies strike Israel and spark a wider war in which the US would be treaty bound to defend Israel?

And why not pursue the evidence that Saudi Arabia has provided chemical weapons to certain rebel factions? If it is learned that this is indeed a fact, and if it is learned that it was certain rebel factions themselves you set off the chemical weapons themselves (be it mistakenly or purposefully), what is our response?

Would we not want to find definitive proof of such a heinous crime as using chemical weapons instead of attacking those who didn't actually commit the act even though we don't happen to like those we are about to attack?
If it is found out that certain rebel factions set off the chemical weapons, should the US keep supporting the Syrian rebels?

If certain rebel factions cannot be controlled by the FSA, then what assurances are there that the FSA would even have the power to take control over Syria if Assad is toppled?
If the goal of the pro Syrian rebel faction among those that argue for intervention is to install a secular government, is not Assad secular already? Syria already has a secular government. And they take a hard line against Islamic extremists, as does virtually all middle eastern secular governments.

If Assad falls, that won't be the end of the civil war, it will just be the beginning again as the various rebel factions fight among themselves for control of the country. And the FSA claimed, at least initially, that they had no designs on political power, they just wanted Assad ousted. If that's the case, how can we rely on the FSA to make sure that a democratic and secular government takes over?

Everything is pointing to either a not well thought out plan by the administration, or there are other goals in play here than the noble "humanitarian" reasons cited.

And this is why the American people overwhelming oppose even getting involved. It's a snake pit of lies and deceit.

But the will of the people, law, the Constitution, and democracy don't mean a damn thing to the war hawks or their useful idiots.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 3:59 pm

patches70 wrote:Well, the Obama administration offered as "proof" that Assad carried out the chemical attacks by citing 100 youtube videos. It is the administrations belief that the rebels could not have fabricated that many videos, so it must have been Assad. That's the extent of the "evidence" that Assad ordered the attack carried out by the Syrian government.

However, in actual interviews with residents of Ghouta a different story emerges. It's become aware that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia (Saud intelligence chief) has provided chemical weapons to militant group Jabhat al-Nusra (which is linked to Al Qaida). Jabhat al-Nusra was storing these weapons in tunnels in East Ghouta while they barracked mosques and private houses.

Residents have said that this militant group mishandled the weapons and set them off by mistake killing a number of rebel fighters there in the tunnels.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-3 ... al-attacks

While the US says Assad carried out the attacks, citing youtube as evidence, what has never been answered is-
What chemical weapons exactly were used?
How were the chemical weapons delivered in the attack?
What is the motive for Assad to use such weapons right after a UN team has arrived in Syria to inspect said weapons?

This is more and more likely a false flag attack, whether by accident or calculated move by certain rebel factions, the incident is being used to attempt to drag the US into the conflict.

In the meantime, Obama claims the upcoming US attacks on Syria (an act of war, no way to say it isn't), will be limited. But here's the catch. A nation that perpetrates an act of war upon another nation doesn't get to decide how long or how wide that war becomes.
If Obama strikes Syria, Syria is well within her rights under international law to strike back at the US. At her military bases in the region, Washington, the Pentagon and other valid military targets anywhere in the world. If Syria did such a thing, what would become of Obama's "limited action" promise?
Or if Syria or her allies strike Israel and spark a wider war in which the US would be treaty bound to defend Israel?

And why not pursue the evidence that Saudi Arabia has provided chemical weapons to certain rebel factions? If it is learned that this is indeed a fact, and if it is learned that it was certain rebel factions themselves you set off the chemical weapons themselves (be it mistakenly or purposefully), what is our response?

Would we not want to find definitive proof of such a heinous crime as using chemical weapons instead of attacking those who didn't actually commit the act even though we don't happen to like those we are about to attack?
If it is found out that certain rebel factions set off the chemical weapons, should the US keep supporting the Syrian rebels?

If certain rebel factions cannot be controlled by the FSA, then what assurances are there that the FSA would even have the power to take control over Syria if Assad is toppled?
If the goal of the pro Syrian rebel faction among those that argue for intervention is to install a secular government, is not Assad secular already? Syria already has a secular government. And they take a hard line against Islamic extremists, as does virtually all middle eastern secular governments.

If Assad falls, that won't be the end of the civil war, it will just be the beginning again as the various rebel factions fight among themselves for control of the country. And the FSA claimed, at least initially, that they had no designs on political power, they just wanted Assad ousted. If that's the case, how can we rely on the FSA to make sure that a democratic and secular government takes over?

Everything is pointing to either a not well thought out plan by the administration, or there are other goals in play here than the noble "humanitarian" reasons cited.

And this is why the American people overwhelming oppose even getting involved. It's a snake pit of lies and deceit.

But the will of the people, law, the Constitution, and democracy don't mean a damn thing to the war hawks or their useful idiots.


Great summary of the situation.

Meanwhile, ol' Blood & Guts Kerry takes to the airwaves to try to boost support for the U.S. War Against Syria above 9% ... backfires ...

Kevin Gosztola (FireDogLake)- "This is one delusional pep talk from Kerry, rife with denial and built on mythology of American empire. #Syria"

Kareen Shaheen (The National) - "The end of Kerry's speech was as anti-climactic as these peanut butter cookies which were in the oven for an hour, taunting me."

Roei Eisenberg (Haaretz) - "Why limit the range of your actions before you take them? For a senior diplomat, Kerry has limited understanding of strategy and deterrence."

Eli Lake (Newsweek) - "no mention of international law or the UN Security Council from Secretary of State John Kerry"

trending on Twitter - John Kerry having lunch at an upscale, $100 entrée restaurant with Bashar and Asma al-Assad (Dr. Assad picked-up the cheque)
Image
look similar to something?
Image
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:43 pm

Ahh, and the real kicker, coming out today in the news. Defense spending. To carry out the attacks on Syria the Department of Defense needs more funds. They don't have enough money to carry out even a limited attack unless Congress ups the defense spending-

http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-cant-aff ... nal-funds/

and if you notice in the thread I started-
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=195029

I mention that very fact and sum it all up quite nicely in the following chart-




Image

That downward trending on defense spending is trouble for the people who make their living on the US spending more than it can afford and has to keep borrowing. When spending is in that trajectory something has to be done, like start a war.....


Humanitarian reasons my azz. It's all about the money.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 5:50 pm

A picture is worth a thousand words, and for lack of better words, two pictures to show what Obama has done to himself-

Image



Image
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:40 pm

patches70 wrote:Ahh, and the real kicker, coming out today in the news. Defense spending. To carry out the attacks on Syria the Department of Defense needs more funds. They don't have enough money to carry out even a limited attack unless Congress ups the defense spending-

http://freebeacon.com/pentagon-cant-aff ... nal-funds/


LOL -->

Reports that the White House is planning an attack to punish Damascus for the [alleged] use of chemical weapons sent Raytheon’s stock price to a 52-week high this week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/s ... -96045.htm

Imagel
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:16 pm

Good summary, patches. RE: Saudi Arabia and their funding terrorist groups,

I've never understood why the US doesn't take a stronger stance against that.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:55 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good summary, patches. RE: Saudi Arabia and their funding terrorist groups,

I've never understood why the US doesn't take a stronger stance against that.



There is another little bit of information I haven't mentioned. Back in July of 2013 Saudi Arabia and Russia had a "secret" meeting. The previously mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan met with Putin to discuss among other things, Syria. Bandar guaranteed that if Putin would withdraw support for Assad, then Saudi Arabia would protect all of Russia's interests in Syria. Actual quote by Bandar-
"we guarantee you that Russia’s interests in Syria and on the Mediterranean coast will not be affected one bit."

Also guaranteed by Bandar was that no Chechen groups will threaten the upcoming games Scheduled in Sochi as it is the Sauds who control those groups. Bandar further went on to tell Putin that if he did not agree to stop supporting Assad, then things would quickly escalate in Syria.

Veiled threats, without a doubt, to the face of Putin himself. Putin, as we know, told Bandar this, an exact quote-

Putin wrote:Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters. During the Geneva I Conference, we agreed with the Americans on a package of understandings, and they agreed that the Syrian regime will be part of any settlement. Later on, they decided to renege on Geneva I. In all meetings of Russian and American experts, we reiterated our position.


Needless to say Putin laughed at the Saudi (and by extension, US) threats.

The link below details the meeting, translated from As-Safir. The meeting was supposed to remain secret, but one of the two sides leaked the meeting and what was discussed. None of which is reported by US media at all.
http://assafir.com/MulhakArticle.aspx?E ... hyKCW2Qb_S

At the heart of the matter is the Qatar, who want to build a natgas line through Syria and the only thing standing in their way is Assad. Qatar is by far the nation that has invested the most money in the Syrian rebel struggle, even providing mercenaries to fight against Assad.
The whole natgas infrastructure is complete, except through Syria. And that is the interests of Qatar. To sell gas natgas to Europe, the energy market of Russia. So we can see the conflict here, can't we? What the root cause is, and it's not what's been portrayed to the US public at large, not even in the slightest.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/86e3f28e ... z2TTCrYuMm

and why Russia is determined not to let Assad fall. It's about energy. In this case, natural gas to Europe. Russia owns the market, Qatar wants in, Syria is the battlefield for a proxy energy war.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:13 pm

And this is the Arab natgas pipeline-

Image

You can see that the pipeline runs from Egypt, through Jordan and all the way to Homs and Baniyas. The third phase, from Homs to Kilis in Turkey is not built because Assad won't let it be built. Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, if the last leg of the pipeline can be built, then Arab natgas can flow to Europe, cutting into Russia's market.
Putin is protecting Russia's interest, Qatar is trying to get more market share and Syria is caught in the middle.

So you can see the two sides, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, US and Israel on the one side, with Russia, Syria, China and Iran on the other. They are fighting over the petro dollar, of which the former group is trying to protect, and the latter group is the alternative to the petro dollar.

Business is war. The US is getting involved so that when Assad falls the US can make sure that who ever takes over will let the rest of the pipeline be completed. Other than that, it doesn't really matter what type of government it is, just so long as it plays ball with the US. Unlike Assad who is standing in the way of the third phase of the Arab Pipeline and Arab natgas to Europe cheaply and efficiently. Russia has a vested interest that the third phase is not completed and it is Assad who has the say in the matter, for the moment.

If an Islamic Theocracy takes over in Syria, so long as they allow the completion of the project, it'll be just fine with the US. Or a secular autocrat, doesn't matter, so long as the pipeline goes through.


That's what is worth killing people over, that is what's worth bombing and taking the chance of a widening war.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:25 pm

patches70 wrote:and why Russia is determined not to let Assad fall. It's about energy. In this case, natural gas to Europe. Russia owns the market, Qatar wants in, Syria is the battlefield for a proxy energy war.


Well said. So many of the pro-war crowd, which draws its support from the segments of society with the least formal education, have this simpleton's Weltanschauung that imagines Russia is supporting Syria because they're some kind of cartoon, James Bond super-villain.

My fav Qatari-Russian exchange -
    Qatari Supreme King (U.S. ally) - [boisterous threat]
    Russian Ambassador - "If you continue to talk to me like that, there will be no Qatar."
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby patches70 on Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:58 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
My fav Qatari-Russian exchange -
    Qatari Supreme King (U.S. ally) - [boisterous threat]
    Russian Ambassador - "If you continue to talk to me like that, there will be no Qatar."



hahahahah! Now that's diplomacy!
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:14 pm

Russia has moved ships from the Black Sea fleet into a blocking position off the Syrian coast, joining 5 other Russian ships already in the eastern Mediterranean.

This is a welcomed, and - unlike U.S. plans - perfectly legal, deployment. The UN does, after all, have an active arms embargo against both sides that no one has been enforcing (at least with respect to the rebels). So based on the below media reports, I've thrown together this map to track the current positions of belligerent ships we know about ...

Image

U.S. NAVY
- USS San Antonio (amphibious assault ship) + partial Marine Expeditionary Unit
- USS Samuel Gravely (frigate)
- USS John Barry (frigate)
- USS Alfred Mahan (frigate)
- USS Lawson Ramage (frigate)
- 1 unknown ship
- reserves possibly in Italy

RUSSIAN NAVY
- 5 unknown ships in eastern Med
- RFS Moskva (cruiser) transiting Dardanelles en route to join RUS flotilla
- RFS Ladnyy (frigate) transiting Dardanelles en route to join RUS flotilla
- reserves in Black Sea Fleet

FRENCH NAVY
- FS Chevalier Paul (frigate) attempting to join U.S. flotilla
- reserves probably at the naval base at Toulon

sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/ ... 1Z20130831
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-fra ... terranean/
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... s_doorstep
http://wtkr.com/2013/08/29/uss-stout-to ... -to-syria/
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:42 pm

Frigidus wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:When did Frig become a Libertarian?


I wasn't aware that progressives were big on war.


We're not going to war with Syria. We're helping the Syrian people get rid of a tyrannical dictator. There's never been a single proposal at all to invade Syria in any capacity, only to lob Cruise missiles from a distance, and send guns to the rebels.

Progressives are not supposed to be isolationists. They're supposed to see a problem and want to understand it, and try to fix it.

Frigidus wrote:1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.


The main rebel force isn't fighting for political power; it's fighting a dictator for democracy.

It's obscene to me that all these Liberals say the same thing:
If people are being targeted because they are black, or because they are Christian, then we need to intervene. But if they are being targeted because they are poor, so some rich oligarchical asshole can keep an iron grip on the country's government, then that's acceptable. This isn't a war of race or religion, it's a class war. That's not ok.

I'm also pretty shocked by the number of people who refuse to intervene when chemical weapons are used, citing the fact that "we can't know for sure who used them." As if that's more important than the lives of 1400 people who were killed by one.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Juan_Bottom on Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:44 pm

patches70 wrote:Well, the Obama administration offered as "proof" that Assad carried out the chemical attacks by citing 100 youtube videos. It is the administrations belief that the rebels could not have fabricated that many videos, so it must have been Assad. That's the extent of the "evidence" that Assad ordered the attack carried out by the Syrian government.

However, in actual interviews with residents of Ghouta a different story emerges. It's become aware that Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia (Saud intelligence chief) has provided chemical weapons to militant group Jabhat al-Nusra (which is linked to Al Qaida). Jabhat al-Nusra was storing these weapons in tunnels in East Ghouta while they barracked mosques and private houses.

Residents have said that this militant group mishandled the weapons and set them off by mistake killing a number of rebel fighters there in the tunnels.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-3 ... al-attacks

While the US says Assad carried out the attacks, citing youtube as evidence, what has never been answered is-
What chemical weapons exactly were used?
How were the chemical weapons delivered in the attack?
What is the motive for Assad to use such weapons right after a UN team has arrived in Syria to inspect said weapons?

This is more and more likely a false flag attack, whether by accident or calculated move by certain rebel factions, the incident is being used to attempt to drag the US into the conflict.


Follow your link.
That fact-finding journalist who discovered the true origin of the weapons is "Tyler Durden."

You took the opinions of an uncredited fictional character and turned them into an all-out conspiracy theory about the origin of the attack.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/us/us-syr ... t-summary/

Follow that link. The report states that:
  • 1,429 people died in a chemical attack on the 29th
  • The weapon was absolutely nerve agent, confirmed by hospitals and "a highly credible international humanitarian organization"
  • over 100 videos were uploaded onto youtube showing nerve agent injuries (meaning it wasn't some make-up artist)
  • The Syrian Army was using rockets and artillery to attack the area before and after the chemical weapon appeared (approx 90 minutes before the first case appeared)
  • Syrian Chemical Weapons personnel were definitely in the area
  • Syrian communications were intercepted confirming that they used chemical weapons
  • The Syrian government refused to allow the UN to inspect the area
  • The Syrian Army continued to shell the area, destroying all evidence
  • The US does not believe that the Rebels have the capabilities to deliver a chemical weapon
  • The victims weren't faking it for the camera, they definitely died
  • "The regime has failed to clear dozens of Damascus neighborhoods of opposition elements, including neighborhoods targeted on August 21, despite employing nearly all of its conventional weapons systems.

    "We assess that the regime's frustration with its inability to secure large portions of Damascus may have contributed to its decision to use chemical weapons on August 21."

If certain rebel factions cannot be controlled by the FSA, then what assurances are there that the FSA would even have the power to take control over Syria if Assad is toppled?

Excellent question.
Firstly, Syria has along history of peace and tolerance for people of any faith or sect. The main leverage that the FSA has, is that the Syrian people themselves don't want a Sharia Law state. You just can't rule without the consent of the governed.
The second tool is the FSA's large size, but it is definitely possible that al Nustra will end up fighting with the FSA after Assad is toppled. However, the international community, and Hezbollah too I think, are far more likely to recognize a government set up by the FSA than al Nustra. There's no simple answer here, I'm afraid.

If Assad falls, that won't be the end of the civil war, it will just be the beginning again as the various rebel factions fight among themselves for control of the country. And the FSA claimed, at least initially, that they had no designs on political power, they just wanted Assad ousted. If that's the case, how can we rely on the FSA to make sure that a democratic and secular government takes over?

There are none.
You're not exactly relying on the FSA, they are more or less just the army of the people. It's the one's behind them that you're counting on. Hezbollah has maybe 4,000 fighters in Syria, al Nustra maybe 7,000, but the FSA has around 100,000.

And anyway, certainly a noble attempt at nationwide elections is better than the military dictatorship that Syria has now.


Ahh, and the real kicker, coming out today in the news. Defense spending. To carry out the attacks on Syria the Department of Defense needs more funds. They don't have enough money to carry out even a limited attack unless Congress ups the defense spending-


If this is legit;
Yeah this is actually pretty stupid. Defense spending is already up since the Cold War, why the hell do we need more?
Well, war is one of the four pillars of our economy, I guess. But it doesn't have to be.
CNN, the BBC, and NPR are silent on this though. So I dunno if it's legit.


Humanitarian reasons my azz. It's all about the money.

Assad has 150 billion dollars tucked away into private bank accounts in Russia and China, and he's a huge spender when it comes to their weapon sales. Supporting him also makes the US look dumb, and I'm certain that's why Russia is backing him up.

patches70 wrote:And this is the Arab natgas pipeline-

Image

You can see that the pipeline runs from Egypt, through Jordan and all the way to Homs and Baniyas. The third phase, from Homs to Kilis in Turkey is not built because Assad won't let it be built. Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, if the last leg of the pipeline can be built, then Arab natgas can flow to Europe, cutting into Russia's market.
Putin is protecting Russia's interest, Qatar is trying to get more market share and Syria is caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline

That pipeline hasn't been built because Turkey chose not to have it built.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:45 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
patches70 wrote:And this is the Arab natgas pipeline-

Image

You can see that the pipeline runs from Egypt, through Jordan and all the way to Homs and Baniyas. The third phase, from Homs to Kilis in Turkey is not built because Assad won't let it be built. Russia is the largest supplier of natural gas to Europe, if the last leg of the pipeline can be built, then Arab natgas can flow to Europe, cutting into Russia's market.
Putin is protecting Russia's interest, Qatar is trying to get more market share and Syria is caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline

That pipeline hasn't been built because Turkey chose not to have it built
.


Where's it say that, JB?

Syria–Turkey connection

In 2006 Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Romania reached an agreement to build the pipeline's extension through Syria to the Turkish border. From there, the pipeline would have been connected to the possible Nabucco Pipeline for the delivery of gas to Europe. Turkey forecasted buying up to 4 billion cubic metres (140 billion cubic feet) of gas per year from the Arab Gas Pipeline.[19] In 2008 Turkey and Syria signed an agreement to construct a 63 kilometres (39 mi) pipeline between Aleppo and Kilis as a first segment of the Syria-Turkey connection of the Arab Gas Pipeline[20][21] and Stroytransgaz signed a US$71 million contract for the construction of this section.[22] However this contract was annulled at the beginning of 2009 and it was re-tendered. From Kilis, a 15-kilometre (9.3 mi) long pipeline with a diameter of 12 inches (300 mm) would connect the pipeline with the Turkish grid thus allowing the Turkish grid to be supplied via the Syrian grid even before completing the Homs–Aleppo segment.


It just says it was annulled, with no citation. Hey, isn't that how you make 'facts'? By shoving them into your worldview of non-verification?

That was easy.

More interesting news: a Russian company was building that pipeline (Homs-Kilis) in 10/2008, but let's investigate:


In 2009, recognizing that the heady days of Syrian oil production in the 1980s were long gone and that the sector’s future lay in transit, Assad announced a ‘four seas strategy’ aimed at transforming the country into a regional hub for oil transportation between the Persian Gulf and the Black, Caspian and Mediterranean seas. He began taking steps to realize the country’s transit-center potential and bring the four seas strategy closer to reality.

In late 2010, his government signed a memorandum of understanding with Iraq for the construction of two oil and one gas pipeline to carry gas and oil from Iraq’s Akkas and Kirkuk fields, respectively, to the Syrian port of Banias on the Mediterranean Sea. In July 2011 Iranian officials announced a $10 billion gas pipeline deal between Syria, Iraq and Iran that would transport gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field, the world’s biggest, through Iraq to Syria. Also planned was an extension of the AGP from Aleppo, in Syria, to the southern Turkish city of Kilis that could later link to the proposed Nabucco pipeline linking Turkey to Europe, if that pipeline ever materializes.

It would be a boon for Syria if these proposed deals were eventually followed through. But at this point, of course, with the government isolated and the country on the brink of civil war, the whole strategy seems wildly speculative. No foreign contractors or foreign money will get involved in the proposed projects as long as Assad clings to power.

But financing is only the first problem. Before serious planning for pipelines can begin, Syria will need to stabilize its relations with its neighbors politically, especially Turkey and Iraq. Both are essential to Syria’s realization of its transit potential – Iraq as a key supplier of oil and gas and Turkey as a destination point for Syria’s transnational pipelines, particularly the AGP.

Syrian-Iraqi relations have been hostile for much of the past half century, with tensions between rival Baath party governments in the time of Saddam Hussein cemented by Syria’s longstanding ties with Iran since the 1979 revolution. Syria and Iraq reestablished diplomatic links in 2006, partially because Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki had become heavily reliant on Assad’s ally Iran for power, but these were broken again in 2009 after Iraq accused Damascus of harboring militants who bombed Baghdad in August of that year. Still, the Iran factor continues to complicate Syrian-Iraqi relations today, with the Maliki government yet to condemn Assad, probably under the influence of Iran.

Turkey, a one-time ally of Assad’s regime, has gone much further in condemning the violent crackdown, announcing last November that it would halt joint oil exploration activities with Syria and saying this month that it would completely suspend all trade relations and agreements between the two countries.

As strategic as Syria’s geography is, Turkey and Iraq have already shown the ability to move on without their troubled neighbor in the transit of oil and gas. The Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline, built in the 1980s and the only operating export route for Iraq’s northern production, seemingly goes out of its way to bypass Syria on its way to Ceyhan on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast.

http://openoil.net/2012/03/28/syrias-tr ... -damascus/

So, the plans were there, but then the civil war happened, so the funding/potential capital shriveled up. This corresponds more with patches' version. However, due to the civil war, Turkey was increasingly putting on the brakes for that pipeline---to repeat: because of the civil war. So, even if JB is 100% correct (which he isn't because more than Turkey was involved), then his retort would still support patches' story.

If that's the measure of JB's reading skills, then his analysis should be accordingly taken into consideration.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby saxitoxin on Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:47 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:Follow your link.
That fact-finding journalist who discovered the true origin of the weapons is "Tyler Durden."

You took the opinions of an uncredited fictional character ...


Image

So Juan, apparently, has never heard of ZeroHedge!?!?! :lol:

Juan, for your edification, "Tyler Durden" - the Chuck Palahniuk character - is the collective pen name used by ZeroHedge's authors. ZeroHedge is a major markets analysis website that exposed the Goldman Sachs flash trading scandal (have you heard of Goldman Sachs?). Here's Matt Taibbi (have you heard of him?) -

I’m all about Zero Hedge. I think there are a great many things about him that represent an enormous improvement over traditional media, and a real rebuke to the thinking of most traditional editors. I know at most commercial news organizations reporters are told that the public has no appetite for complex issues, and that material has to be dumbed down for presentation to the public. Zero Hedge went 10,000% in the opposite direction and became a huge hit. Readers, it turns out, are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/09 ... ero-hedge/


In just sixty seconds on Google you could see that ZH has recently been cited as an expert source by the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, the Financial Post, Der Spiegel, the Seattle Times, Politico, etc. etc. etc. This is really too funny. Each of Juan's gotcha moments go careening into an unwitting expose of how out-of-touch he is with news gathering, news reporting and, well ... just news. The limits of Juan's informational pedigree is apparently the Royal Baby updates on CNN and maybe some bite-size news slop at Newser. Damn, just crack open a book, bro. Or stick to looking for Koni. One of those. This is just cringe-worthy to watch.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant saxitoxin
 
Posts: 8199
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Sy

Postby Frigidus on Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:07 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:When did Frig become a Libertarian?


I wasn't aware that progressives were big on war.


We're not going to war with Syria. We're helping the Syrian people get rid of a tyrannical dictator. There's never been a single proposal at all to invade Syria in any capacity, only to lob Cruise missiles from a distance, and send guns to the rebels.

Progressives are not supposed to be isolationists. They're supposed to see a problem and want to understand it, and try to fix it.


If Canada fired cruise missiles into our country we would absolutely consider it to be an act of war. If we fired cruise missiles at China we would be at war with them. Just because Syria lacks the military muscle to respond to our actions doesn't make an act of war something else. I wouldn't call myself an isolationist, but I do believe in respecting Westphalian sovereignty outside of extreme situations. We chose to send weapons to the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Cold War. Sometimes the prudent decision is to not stir up hornets nests.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Frigidus wrote:1. I'd say that intervention is acceptable in situations where people are being targeted for their ethnicity, religion, etc. When the fight is occurring because both sides want political power it isn't our place to step in.

2. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the wrong hands is one thing, chemical weapons is another. There are all sorts of horrible atrocities committed throughout the Middle East, I don't see why we should elevate the use of chemical weapons above everything else.


The main rebel force isn't fighting for political power; it's fighting a dictator for democracy.

It's obscene to me that all these Liberals say the same thing:
If people are being targeted because they are black, or because they are Christian, then we need to intervene. But if they are being targeted because they are poor, so some rich oligarchical asshole can keep an iron grip on the country's government, then that's acceptable. This isn't a war of race or religion, it's a class war. That's not ok.


The Middle East does not need democracy right now, they need Enlightenment values. Giving political agency to people who riot when they hear that somebody drew a picture of their prophet is not the best idea. If you want an example of how tacking democracy on to a deeply flawed culture can go wrong, just look at Egypt. After electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power, the new government immediately began work on removing all restraints on their authority. The military eventually threw the guy out, but they sure as hell aren't the good guys. Just a couple of weeks ago they started using live ammunition on protestors. Should we fire cruise missiles at Egypt too?

Juan_Bottom wrote:I'm also pretty shocked by the number of people who refuse to intervene when chemical weapons are used, citing the fact that "we can't know for sure who used them." As if that's more important than the lives of 1400 people who were killed by one.


So even though we don't know who used them we should just punch the first guy we see in the face? Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than the stoning of adulterers that occurs in other parts of the region? Who are we to complain about chemical weapons when we hold people without a trial for years, often while torturing them? I guess the rest of the world (minus France) should just stand aside while we fire missiles in such a way that we appear "just muscular enough not to get mocked"? Where was this demand for action in Darfur? Why aren't we taking sides in the current civil war in the Central African Republic?
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

PreviousNext

Return to The Recovery Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users