List of Things More Popular Than a Potential War with Syria

[patches70]

I only mention Saudi Arabia and Qatar because it would be nice for JB to ask himself "why?"

Why is Qatar the #1 nation to have supplied the most money and arms, far out pacing anything the US has done in terms of throwing money and material to the rebels?
Why is Saudi Arabia making veiled threats at the Russians over Olympic Games security from Chechen factions?
Why is Saudi Arabia so keen on getting rid of Assad?
Why is Qatar so keen on getting rid of Assad?

If JB thinks it's because those two countries want the Syrian people to be free, well that doesn't hold water at all, does it? The Saudi's and Qatari don't give a crap about political and civil freedoms for the Syrian people.

The House of Saud sponsors jihadists groups, to make trouble elsewhere instead of focusing on Saudi Arabia.

What is it that the Saudi's and Qatari really want?

When people ask themselves these questions and get to those answers, a different picture emerges. Of course, those lines don't fit into the narrative. I don't think if Obama came on national TV and said "We need to help the Saudi and Qatari governments topple the Syrian government so that our allies can obtain yet another market advantage to further promote the petro dollar" is going to fly very well with the American people as to why we need to act, but hell, who knows? It might be a better line to take to convince the American people to get behind attacking Syria and provoking Russia and China.

At least that way it can be argued that the US actually has a real stake in this, instead of this BS humanitarian line that the currently isn't going so well. That we need to align ourselves with the rebel factions that the American people clearly don't trust in the slightest. And why should we? Their ranks are filled with jihadists that hate the US more than they hate Assad.
We are more than content with letting them fighting it out with Assad and each other rather than intervene to actually help the very people who the US government blamed for the 9/11 attacks.

But the FSA isn't like that, argues JB. Well that sucks for the FSA, since they've aligned themselves with the jihadists anyway. Maybe they had little choice, but when they did that then there goes any chance for the US population to support ever helping the FSA.

Get rid of the jihadists.
So how does that saying go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? No, that can't be right, is it- Our enemies are our friends? Aww hell, let's just arm the terrorists against Assad, nothing could go wrong with that scenario, right? If it's good enough for Qatar and Saudi Arabia, then it should be damn well good enough for us, right JB?

I for one, am not only not a fan of Assad, I'm an even less of a fan for Qatar and Saudi Arabia and I'm down right hostile toward jihadists. And, like me, so are quite a few other Americans.

[BigBallinStalin]

What is it that the Saudi's and Qatari really want?

When people ask themselves these questions and get to those answers, a different picture emerges. Of course, those lines don't fit into the narrative. I don't think if Obama came on national TV and said "We need to help the Saudi and Qatari governments topple the Syrian government so that our allies can obtain yet another market advantage to further promote the petro dollar" is going to fly very well with the American people as to why we need to act, but hell, who knows? It might be a better line to take to convince the American people to get behind attacking Syria and provoking Russia and China.

You know, it is common in foreign policy analysts and international affairs theory (and others) to mention the benefits of gaining greater security over resources and resource flows (trade lines). For realism, as described by Donald Snow, economic concerns play a dominant role in maintaining security. Occasionally I stumble into casual remarks about such benefits for various topics: the Second US-Iraq War, attacking pirates off Somalia, and continuing/increasing the arms race against China.

This is why the 'petrodollar hypothesis' has merit. It fits the goal of maintaining security over resources for the sake of the economy, thus the state. And I can't imagine why any chief foreign policy analyst of the USG would ignore it or reject it. (Of course, their spokespersons may reject it, but rhetoric does not reflect actual intentions nor outcomes).

[patches70]

This is why the 'petrodollar hypothesis' has merit. It fits the goal of maintaining security over resources for the sake of the economy, thus the state. And I can't imagine why any chief foreign policy analyst of the USG would ignore it or reject it. (Of course, their spokespersons may reject it, but rhetoric does not reflect actual intentions nor outcomes).

Oh yeah, the petodollar is paramount in foreign policy, we are just careful to hide the fact is all. The JB's of the world latch on to the rhetoric but blissfully remain unaware or uncaring of the real picture. It brings about all sorts of other implications that change the rhetoric of noble causes into the true reality of economic dominance over the rest of the world.

People with common sense who look at the twisting and turnings of the rhetoric to maintain the illusion of noble designs scratch their head and wonder "WTF?" Why one day some dictator is our best bud, the next it's the terrorists who kill Americans are now allies. Why one day we are aligned with one group of murders and the next a different group of murders who the day before were our enemies.
It only makes sense when one starts understanding the petrodollar and why it must be protected at virtually all costs.

Those who embrace the petrodollar are the good guys no matter how badly they treat their own people or the evil deeds and the chaos they spread throughout the world. Those who reject the petrodollar dominance are evil tyrants no matter how popular their governments may be with their own people.

As you like to ask so often, BBS, some will argue that the petrodollar is better than the alternative, except that the alternative is not ever actually compared to the petrodollar. We are simply told that it is the best way facilitate trade and provide security. But is that really true? We can't really know. It's the best for the US in the short term, but is it better long term and what about the rest of the world?

I believe there are other ways which are far more fair and far less corrupting and bring better security without having to pistol whip people and nations into compliance. Ways that doesn't make US foreign policy appear so schizophrenic. Truth is better than deception, though both can be painful. Better that the pain come from the truth rather than the added kick to the face that comes with deception. IMO.

[Juan_Bottom]

Juan, if you look carefull,you will see that all countries in middle east are totalitarian regimes.
Like patshes notice, Saudi Arabia are totalitarian monarchy,, where for small thief , they cut your hand( its this normal)
In bahrain people also protesting, but this its totaly isolated from world news,and US are blind.
Only what separate Syria from other Middle East countries, are that everybody are allies with US, and they can brake human right, how they want, has long they are in friendly relationship with US .

If Syrian want freedom, i think that Saudi,Bahrain,Qatar also need to get freedom.
So simple if US help that people in this countries overthrow this totalitarian regimes,, then US can attack Syria, and then all people will be "free"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahraini_u ... present%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... udi_Arabia

Well again, I'm an American. As such, I accept the Bill of Rights as being not just an American ideal, but belonging to everyone. Anyone who is willing to risk their own life for freedom deserves to be free, and I want to help them. There was a time when my hero, John Adams, was offered the opportunity to surrender, and in exchange he was offered a pardon. He refused, even though the Continental Army was losing the war, and even though he knew that his name was on the list of Americans who were to hang. He said that he would rather fight from the hills than bend the knee to a tyrant.
You have to take a step back, and look at this dilemma through the eyes of history. The people of Saudi Arabia are not rebelling, and certainly people have the right to chose their own government. The people of Syria did peacefully protest theirs, and their government killed them for it... so the people rose with a fiery rage. Their government now has no legitimacy. But your question is are the people of Saudi Arabia equally oppressed? Maybe. But they're also relatively content to live with their government. Because of this, the US doesn't have any moral grounds to go assault the Saudi Palace, and even if we did, the people would probably just as likely choose a new King.
Take a look at Germany after WWI. Our nations came in and clobbered the German Kaiser and his Oligarchy. We set up a new Liberal Democracy called the Wiemar Republic. But only a few short years later, Hitler legally came to be the Dictator of Germany, and did away with the Wiemar. The German people themselves rejected democracy because they believed that their country needed a new Kaiser. Do you see what I'm trying to say? We cannot destroy countries in the name of Freedom, when the people who live there don't want to live that way. If our beliefs are alien to them then they're just going to do away with them anyway. That's something that you yourself said about Afghanistan as well.


I also support the people of Bahrain in their protests. However, these people are not engaged in a Civil War, and their King is working with the International Community to stabilize his country, and to show the world some transparency. We don't see that in Syria. But IMO, King Douchebag from Bahrain is a terrible person and a liar, yet America still cannot aid people who are seen only as protesters. It's unfortunate.
Besides this, it took almost three years of a Civil War in Syria before Americans started to seriously discuss intervention.


At this point in the conversation I'm confused as well. Do you believe that the people of Syria have the right to choose their own government, and the right to self-defense? Or do you believe that the people of Syria need a dictator?

[Juan_Bottom]

Keep on with your fiction, Juan, the FSA is now fighting a three front war.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... sNewsForth

unless, by chance, you've never heard of the Wall Street Journal. Your idealized view of the rebel factions in Syria is not up to par with reality.

I already said that the FSA is fighting al Nusra, who swore allegiance to al Qaeda.

Ok, so I praise the FSA for fighting for democracy, and for defending the Syrian people when the Syrian Army was ordered to kill or capture protesters. Over 600 of those protesters have been tortured to death by Assad.
BUT NOAWAAAWAa, the FSA is also fighting al-Qaeda, the terrorist group sworn to destroy America, and I'm a dumf*ck for still supporting the FSA? Have you fallen so head-over-heels in love with Putin that you forgot where you even live? al Qaeda wants you dead, whether you support the rebels who will create a government which is hostile to them or not.
Why would you even post this? It totally weakens your argument. You made the FSA look like world heroes here.

You may think that because the US is the only superpower, that it entitles us to decide who lives, who dies, who rules who doesn't, but that is dangerous thinking and the height of arrogance. Thanks, but no thanks. Do the dirty work yourself if you really believe in it, leave me and mine out of it. I don't want the US military being used as a mercenary force (remember, Kerry said that the Saudi's would pay for all our military expenditures in Syrian strikes, that makes us nothing more than mercenaries ourselves).

Yes we are the only superpower.

The US military has no reason whatsoever to send troops into Syria, and anyone who thinks otherwise is stupid. If you do not want to be sent to fight somewhere, then don't join the military. Only a total idiot would join the military thinking that they would only be called upon if Putin invades Alaska.

We did not start this fight.
But as people with enough information to choose sides, and the capability to safely (for us) aid the good guys, yes, we have a moral obligation to do so. You've drawn exactly the same line with Syria that Charles Lindberg drew with the Nazis. "It's none of our business, it's dangerous, and we cannot win." You're only helping the oppressor when you look away.

I don't want the US military being put in harm's way to make a rich Qatar Emir even richer.
That's what we would be doing, and all the while making sure that the Syrian people endure even more bloodshed and misery. Where is the democracy and freedom for the Saudi people?*
Where is the democracy and freedom for the Qatari people?*

Are those people rebelling?

And the only reason we put up with Saudi Arabia and Qatar is not because we rely on them for oil, most of the US' oil imports come from Canada, Mexico and South America (and we certainly don't need OPEC for natural gas**). We put up with them because they are the foundation of the petro dollar. And guess who is bypassing the petro dollar? Iran (and Russia, China, India, Japan and more).

And since you've failed to understand anything I've tried to make you aware of, it's not about oil, it's about the petro dollar. The petro dollar which is the only thing that props up the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world (and all the benefits that come from such a status) which is vital to the US to maintain her "superpower" status. With out the petro dollar, we aren't a super power.
It's as simple as that, and it's no conspiracy, it's absolute fact.

No, yeah, that's definitely a conspiracy theory.
Since the dawn of currency, there has always been a single dominant reserve currency. I know of no country who ever went to war to maintain their status as the producers of the reserve currency. For us we just get to run a trade deficit for it, and we pump that money back into the global economy through aid packages to foriegn governments like Haiti or Egypt. Big Deal, patches.
However, other countries, without petrodollars, have been global superpowers. While the Ruble had it's place, it wasn't the "petrodollar," yet no one disputes that the Soviet Union was a global power. Or that Carthage was a superpower. And while the Euro is the second most common reserve currency, somehow you think that we are plotting to attack Syria instead, then force it's people to accept our money.
It's a country the size of Nebraska.
Nebraska.
Nebraska patches.
You think that we waited 3 years after a war started, then started a public discussion about whether or not to intervene in a country the size of Nebraska, secretly as part of a global conspiracy that all the other countries are too stupid to figure out, all so we could force Nebraska-sized Syria to accept American dollars.

Meanwhile Iran's underwriters and insurers like India and Japan aren't even being harassed. These being the nations who are primarily allowing Iran to trade in Euros.
One thing that I enjoy about conspiracy theories is this: They make you feel like you're smarter than everyone else. Like everyone else around you is asleep.

Humanitarian, ha! JB's idea of "humanitarian" is lobbing missiles and killing people.
Yeah, that's real humanitarian.
And if lobbing missiles isn't enough, what then JB? Invasion? Contrary to your belief, the secular "good guys" you like to believe in aren't winning the war, they are getting their ass kicked, which is why they are begging for our help. The Jihadists on the other hand, are just setting themselves up to steal any of that help that may come. And if the US ever puts troops into Syria, the Jihadists will shoot Americans just like they shoot Syrian troops and FSA troops. They are equal opportunity killers with a particular zeal for killing Americans.

I'm sorry but your thinking is of poor quality.
Take some philosophy from Alvin C. York, a famous American soldier and conscientious objector, who was forced into uniform in 1917. During an attack in France he killed 28 Germans and capture over 100 more, all single handed. A reporter later asked him, as a conscientious objector, why did he kill all those people? Why didn't he just throw away his gun and surrender?

York said that he could see the German machine guns killing dozens of soldiers in the field below, so he had to kill the gunners.... to save the lives of the men in the fields.

Your thinking is akin to having a time machine and going back to 1938. There you are, you've got a chance to kill Hitler and avert WWII, but you think "Killing people? Yeah, that's real humanitarian." As York learned in France, sometimes it actually is. Assad is bombing bread lines and hospitals. Literally. He is literally claiming that bread lines and hospitals are strategic targets. Ignoring that is the least humane thing that you can do. And to say that you don't care that he's bombing children's hospitals because of petrodollars? C'mon, that's stupid.


Another flaw in your post here is that you already explained with your first link that the FSA is fighting the jihadists. But if the FSA is not strong enough, perhaps the jihadists will win, and make Syria a haven for terrorist cells. Therefor, it logically follows that if you do not favor the jihadists, you should favor the FSA.
Also, our guns are not going anywhere but to the FSA.

Guess who the biggest natgas exporters are in the world? Russia, Iran and Qatar.
Qatar wants a pipeline through Syria (absolute fact), Russia doesn't want Qatar to have that line through Syria (absolute fact) so if Qatar wants that line through Syria, then Assad has to go. Russia is not going to let that happen, and this puts the US into a dangerous position if we go getting involved in this energy war.[/i]
Qatar exports natgas mainly to Asia. They'd like to expand exports to Europe as well, but they need that pipeline to do so. They can't rely on oil, because Qatar is running out of oil, fast. That's why they've invested billions in their natgas infrastructure and want a greater share into the European market, which is the domain of Russia's energy companies. Qatar is also the #1 natgas exporter in the world. And this natgas bounty for Qatar is fairly recent.
But you, JB, fail to even recognize these facts and because of that, are unable to assess the risks. Where as you attempt to put forth the idea that getting involved in the Syrian civil war poses no risks to the US, the rest of us understand that we are indeed putting ourselves at serious risk.
Luckily, Obama seems to have recognized the risks and wisely backed the f*ck down. So the US got a little egg on it's face, it's not the end of the world.

This is also very stupid.
We already went over this.
There is already a pipeline being built through all of those western Asian countries, through Turkey, and into Europe. Iraq and Iran have been offered to join to pipeline, with a possibility of Qatar as well. A Russian firm will be involved in the construction of the pipeline. And this gas may just as well be paid for by EUROS, as by GREENBACKS. Iran is the only country who has signed on for certain, they have the largest natural gas reserve in the world (to my knowledge) and they only accept Euros as payment. Your conspiracy fell apart the second I googled it.

[Juan_Bottom]

I only mention Saudi Arabia and Qatar because it would be nice for JB to ask himself "why?"

Why is Qatar the #1 nation to have supplied the most money and arms, far out pacing anything the US has done in terms of throwing money and material to the rebels?
Why is Saudi Arabia making veiled threats at the Russians over Olympic Games security from Chechen factions?
Why is Saudi Arabia so keen on getting rid of Assad?
Why is Qatar so keen on getting rid of Assad?

If JB thinks it's because those two countries want the Syrian people to be free, well that doesn't hold water at all, does it? The Saudi's and Qatari don't give a crap about political and civil freedoms for the Syrian people.

The House of Saud sponsors jihadists groups, to make trouble elsewhere instead of focusing on Saudi Arabia.

What is it that the Saudi's and Qatari really want?

When people ask themselves these questions and get to those answers, a different picture emerges. Of course, those lines don't fit into the narrative. I don't think if Obama came on national TV and said "We need to help the Saudi and Qatari governments topple the Syrian government so that our allies can obtain yet another market advantage to further promote the petro dollar" is going to fly very well with the American people as to why we need to act, but hell, who knows? It might be a better line to take to convince the American people to get behind attacking Syria and provoking Russia and China.

At least that way it can be argued that the US actually has a real stake in this, instead of this BS humanitarian line that the currently isn't going so well. That we need to align ourselves with the rebel factions that the American people clearly don't trust in the slightest. And why should we? Their ranks are filled with jihadists that hate the US more than they hate Assad.
We are more than content with letting them fighting it out with Assad and each other rather than intervene to actually help the very people who the US government blamed for the 9/11 attacks.

But the FSA isn't like that, argues JB. Well that sucks for the FSA, since they've aligned themselves with the jihadists anyway. Maybe they had little choice, but when they did that then there goes any chance for the US population to support ever helping the FSA.

Get rid of the jihadists.
So how does that saying go? The enemy of my enemy is my friend? No, that can't be right, is it- Our enemies are our friends? Aww hell, let's just arm the terrorists against Assad, nothing could go wrong with that scenario, right? If it's good enough for Qatar and Saudi Arabia, then it should be damn well good enough for us, right JB?

I for one, am not only not a fan of Assad, I'm an even less of a fan for Qatar and Saudi Arabia and I'm down right hostile toward jihadists. And, like me, so are quite a few other Americans.

That's right. You only mentioned Saudi Arabia and Qatar... that's a good point.

Here is a list of the countries that tried to negotiate a cease-fire in Syria:
Egypt
France
Germany
Italy
Jordan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States

Here is a list of international Organizations (excluding private organizations):
African Union
Arab League
Arab Maghreb Union
European Union
Friends of Syria
Gulf Cooperation Council
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
United Nations


All of the world's powers, aside from the two typical members of the Security Council, agreed that they wanted a change of government in Syria. Only a handful were willing to commit to military aid for the FSA. This includes Turkey, France, and the US, so I don't know why you're so obsessed with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


Also, here's a link someone posted about how the FSA is fighting a military campaign against those terrorist groups that you dislike:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... sNewsForth

Your distorted view of the rebel factions in Syria is not up to par with reality.

[Dukasaur]

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.

Actually, I meant it pretty much exactly as I worded it. I obviously missed the moment when some Deity came down to Earth and said to the American government: "Ok, you be in charge now. You can decide which bullies can fight with fists only, which ones can use guns and knives, which ones should drive tanks and fly helicopters, which ones can use nerve gas, and which ones can use nukes."

When one thug is in combat with some other thug, what makes you think it's okay to play favourites and decide that one Thug A should have Stinger missiles and Thug B should only use sticks and stones? I suppose I already know the answer to that: you fool yourself into thinking that Thug A is Good, and Thug B is Evil, but it's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit all the way home. There are almost never any good guys in politics; it's just different colours and flavours of bad guys. The good guys are at home filleting fish, milking cows, laying bricks, cobbling shoes, dispensing bandages, and trying their best to get along with their neighbours and not to start shit with anybody.

Now, I want to address your main point:

Over and again history repeats the lesson that standing back and watching only helps the oppressor.

I suppose that's true on a micro level. If you see a bunch of thugs mugging someone in front of your house, you probably should intervene. Some day it might be you that's getting mugged by that gang, and you will be very damned grateful if someone comes to help. So far so good.

Unfortunately, the analogy breaks down when you talk about wars, and I will explain to you why. Wars aren't usually fought between the oppressors and the oppressed. Wars are fought between competing gangs of oppressors. Both sides are Evil (though there may be minor variations in their specific agenda and their precise level of evil) and the oppressed are grist for the mill, who are going to get screwed regardless of which gang wins.

Once in a blue moon, the people have had enough and they spontaneously rise up and march on the Capitol and demand redress of their grievances. This effect, however, rarely lasts more than a few days. There are fish to be filleted, there are cows to be milked, there are bricks to be laid, there are shoes to be cobbled. Civilization can't last more than a few days without restocking the shelves at the grocery store, so after a few days, win or lose, genuinely spontaneous uprisings tend to fizzle out. If they get lucky, they may have won some concessions from the government. These spontaneous revolts are rare, and feature a low-to-moderate level of violence.

What is far more common is that a competing gang wants to replace the gang currently in power. They may recruit some of the common folk, of course, but they are not themselves typical of the population.

Sometimes the new gang talks the talk and manages to persuade the general population to give them high levels of support, but in the end, once the common man has fulfilled his purpose, he is put in his place.

The French people overthrew the evil Bourbon dynasty, and they got a much greater evil in the form of Robespierre and Marat and the Committee of Public Safety. They overthrew the Jacobins and got an even greater form of evil in the shape of Napoleon.

The Chinese people overthrew the oppression of the Manchus and got a much greater oppressor in the form of the Kuomintang. They chafed at the oppression of the Kuomintang and got the greatest oppression imaginable in the shape of the Communists.

The Cubans overthrew the vicious dictator Machada and got a more vicious dictator, Batista. They overthrew Batista and got a vastly more vicious dictator Castro.

Indonesia rebelled against the vile and corrupt Sukarno and got the viler and corrupt-er Suharto. The Russians got tired of being tortured by the Romanov's secret police, so they threw them out and got tortured by the Bolshevik's secret police instead. The Vietnamese got rid of the autocratic Bao Dai and got the far more autocratic Diem government, which soon was overthrown by the even more autocratic Thieu government, which managed to lose the war and surrender the country to the unprecedentedly-autocratic Communists.

I can count on one hand the number of times that a civil war removed an evil dictator and replaced him with a benevolent government, but I could fill an encyclopaedia with a list of all the times that a civil war removed an evil dictator and replaced him with an even more evil dictator. The odds are not good.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was all painless, but in each of these upheavals innocent people suffer and die, only to see their hopes and dreams dashed and a new face of evil stamped onto the walls of the presidential palace.

Now, you want to fool yourself and think the FSA will be different. I'm sure there's some decent and well-intentioned people in the FSA, and I'm sure they will be allowed to address the Western media just as long as they're needed. There were a lot of good and honest people who helped bring Lenin to power, also. They were allowed to live as long as they were needed. Ditto for all the others. Read your history books and see how many good, honest, well-intentioned people fought for Mugabe or Mussolini or Pol Pot. Evil triumphs because good people can't comprehend how cold and calculating the evil really is. They think that the guy who walks beside them and drinks the same water and eats the same bread can't really be that bad.

[Juan_Bottom]

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.

Actually, I meant it pretty much exactly as I worded it. I obviously missed the moment when some Deity came down to earth and said to the American government: "Ok, you be in charge now. You can decide which bullies can fight with fists only, which ones can use guns and knives, which ones should drive tanks and fly helicopters, which ones can use nerve gas, and which ones can use nukes."

When one thug is in combat with some other thug, what makes you think it's okay to play favourites and decide that one Thug A should have Stinger missiles and Thug B should only use sticks and stones? I suppose I already know the answer to that: you fool yourself into thinking that Thug A is Good, and Thug B is Evil, but it's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit all the way home. There are almost never any good guys in politics; it's just different colours and flavours of bad guys. The good guys are at home filleting fish, milking cows, laying bricks, cobbling shoes, dispensing bandages, and trying their best to get along with their neighbours and not to start shit with anybody.

Yeah, well, apparently you did miss it. The turning point in international thinking came after WWII, when the world watched Germany and Japan conquer and enslave their neighbors because "it's none of our business." How you've got the audacity to quote all of these historical events is beyond me, when you've missed the biggest one of the last Century.
And then, we have any number of international laws and treaties that are supposed to govern the way we treat non-combatants. Not caring is why your good guys die, not because we take a side to end the violence.

Nukes and chemical weapons are indiscriminate killers: that is why we all say that they are intolerable. Over 400 children died the night Assad's General ordered the shelling of Damascus with Sarin Nerve Gas.
Calling that an ignorable battle between two thugs is stupid, and very cold.

Now, you want to fool yourself and think the FSA will be different. I'm sure there's some decent and well-intentioned people in the FSA, and I'm sure they will be allowed to address the Western media just as long as they're needed. There were a lot of good and honest people who helped bring Lenin to power, also. They were allowed to live as long as they were needed. Ditto for all the others. Read your history books and see how many good, honest, well-intentioned people fought for Mugabe or Mussolini or Pol Pot. Evil triumphs because good people can't comprehend how cold and calculating the evil really is. They think that the guy who walks beside them and drinks the same water and eats the same bread can't really be that bad.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you think that you're being clever, but you really don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. I'm worried that other members will get more stupid about history, because your post looks so informative. Your view of history and of the FSA are totally distorted. I suspect that is because you're unfamiliar with the intricacies of the events that you're listing and because you hate Middle Easterners. You literally cannot generalize all of these political revolutions into being the same as in Syria. The closest Revolution that I can think of, to equate to Syria, would be the American Revolution.
You know, Americans bandied together to protest a Tyrannical government, and the government's response was to shoot the protesters (Boston Massacre). So the people gathered their weapons, and fought separately in individual Militias until they were finally organized by state and Congress. Similarly, the Syrian Civil War started this way, with their protesters being bombed or kidnapped, and their Militia's have been organized into the FSA. And all in the names of Democracy and Freedom.
Your examples are all quite contorted, to the point of absurdity.
For example, Napoleon did seize power, just as John Adams had forewarned years earlier during the French Revolution. But Napoleon did it with popular consent. He was loved, just like Hitler was later loved, and their peoples felt that way because of they way they felt about democracy... They just didn't believe in it. And because of Napoleon's revival of French prestige.... And Hitler's revival of German prestige, they were both able to become dictators. Yet had more people in France or Germany believed in Democracy, these men could not have taken power. And Obviously the Syrian people believe in Democracy, as they are fighting a dictator for it. The situation is sort of reversed from what you compare it to.
In every other Civil War example that you gave, the young generation led the charge, as they are in Syria, and none of them lied about what their politics were. It was never some big secret.
The FSA is a democratic organization, THEY HAVE NO POLITICAL AMBITION. They are fighting the Syrian regime and the jihadists for a free, Democratic Syria. They have taken responsibility for every war crime that an FSA officer has committed, expelled the responsible officers, and restructured their command to prevent them. That's more honest than America was in Iraq.
The FSA is full of Army officers who threw down their guns and joined the protesters, rather than murder them the way their government ordered them to. They didn't start a f*cking war for a political system, like in your examples; they shot back at their oppressors to defend themselves. Everyone has the right to self defense. Even Muslims. But now they have united and are fighting for Democracy. What you are alleging, is that secretly the FSA is planning to seize power over the very people that they first drew their guns to protect. That's a stupid theory.
Like in your example of China, the Communists won the Civil War, yeah, but they never claimed to be anything other than Communists. It wasn't some big secret surprise in the end the way you allege it will be with the FSA. You're just skeptical of Muslims and pretending like it's ok because it's all related to the Russian Revolution. It doesn't even sound legitimate.

When one thug is in combat with some other thug, what makes you think it's okay to play favourites and decide that one Thug A should have Stinger missiles and Thug B should only use sticks and stones? I suppose I already know the answer to that: you fool yourself into thinking that Thug A is Good, and Thug B is Evil, but it's bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit all the way home. There are almost never any good guys in politics; it's just different colours and flavours of bad guys. The good guys are at home filleting fish, milking cows, laying bricks, cobbling shoes, dispensing bandages, and trying their best to get along with their neighbours and not to start shit with anybody.

What is you're profession?

THUG A: I owned a tailor shop.

THUG B: I used to work in the clothing industry. After the war I'll throw down my gun and return.

Will you go back to your shop after the revolution?

THUG A: I don't know if I will still be alive after the Revolution.

These are very obviously the good guys that you are describing. You just dismissed them as fanatical thugs because they are Middle Eastern. You didn't even try to connect their actions to the actions of evil men, you just point to Pol Pot and say "all revolutionaries are therefore evil." That's bullshit bullshit all the way home. These are just ordinary people who are defending themselves. Everyone is endowed with the right to life, liberty, and happiness, even Middle Easterners.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, JB, here's the problem I have right now. You type this:

Okay, so the reason for involvement in Syria is because a regional conflict (which there is evidence of?) could destabilize half a dozen friendly countries or more (which countries?). Can you please provide some article, statement, or video where the president says this? I have yet to see anything regarding this; this is not a challenge, more of a question.

In any event, it sounds like you're pointing to U.S. hegemony in the region (or maybe not - it seems when you say "destabilize U.S. allies is bad" that means we want U.S. hegemony, but then you say that it's not because Putin has a base there, which seems to mean we don't want U.S. hegemony).

Related aside - When the president was elected in 2008 based upon, to an extent, his view on U.S. intervention in, among other places, the Middle East, some pundits opined that the Obama would have a bit of a wake-up call dealing with U.S. interests abroad and the projection of force to protect those interests. I kind of scoffed at those pundits at the time because I was looking forward to a more dove-ish president. I wonder if he's had that wake-up call.

Well, like Kerry said, the US runs a global empire but has no hegemony. We're too stupid.
What I'm talking about isn't controlling anyone or anything like that, but rather that it's in our best interests to aid the Syrian people, because we're good people. And that's how you make real friends. These Syrians think just like we do, like we did, in 1775. They want freedom of thought, they want bread, and they want the right to make their own decisions. And that's not just what the Syrian uprising was about, but it's also what the entire Arab Spring was about... In the US we have had similar protests nationwide, and the Arab Spring was really part of a larger Global Spring. We all want the same thing, it's only that the people of Syria are starting further back.
We're mixed up in the world, in a very big way. Our culture is global, we also control the world's trade routes, and we control the world's dialogue by controlling the UN. But for all that, nobody in this country has half a brain, hence, no hegemony. People like patches believe in global conspiracy because we don't have intelligent discourse or discussions about what is happening in Syria, or Afghanistan, or Sudan. We just bomb the hell out of those places and move on. So patches is left wondering wtf,.... oil?
In Syria, fighting has spilled across borders; there's over 6 million Syrians displaced, with 2 million living outside of Syria. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have experienced fighting within their own borders. They are also costing these countries billions of dollars, Lebanon alone is expected to spend $11 billion on refugees. And essentially this financial cost and security erosion are the reasons Syria's neighbors, who are our friends, want us to intervene. If you look at our own country, the destabilization of the Mexican government by the international drug trade has made our own US-Mexico border a very dangerous place, even though we are easily the most powerful country in the world. And in Africa, real intervention may never be possible, at least partly because the most dangerous places have no stable borders. For these reasons protecting our allies borders from spillovers is important.
I do not agree, with the fictitious Saxi, or anyone else, that the future government of Syria will be a hot mess of sectarian or religious in-fighting. The Syrian rebels have a lot of different personal politics, like the rest of us do, but for the first time since colonialism ended in the Middle East, we are seeing a willingness from all these people with different perspectives to work together. Look at Tunisia or Egypt or Palestine, and you can see different sects that only 10 years ago were fighting to the death... yet today they are cooperating with each other.

Obviously I jumped into the ring before Obama did, and I've laid out different reasons. Turkey has called for an international coalition against Assad, Jordan has asked the US specifically for help with border security, and Israel is on the fence. Obama's red line seems like nonsense, but Russia's protection of the Syrian regime is more ridiculous. IMHO, what it boils down to for Obama is a few things.

First, Obama doesn't want the Middle East producing more chemical weapons or using them, because then terrorists may be able to get a hold of them. A chemical weapons arms race would be pretty damn unpleasant.
Second, Protesting the chemical weapons is a clumsy attempt at a signal of friendship to the rebels, and future Syrian government. He wants to openly aid them, like he sort-of-said in the presidential debates, but he can't. And the rebels reject Obama's red line en masse. Their position, which I posted in the video, is "GREAT THANKS. So Assad can do whatever he wants, so long as he doesn't use chemical weapons on me. Thanks Obama."
Third, taking away Assad's ability to deploy chemical weapons is a great boon to the rebels. Assad's generals showed a willingness to use chemical weapons when they get desperate.
Finally, the US really does want to set the tone, so to speak, that no one has the right to use Chemical Weapons.

Obama did organize the Friends of Syria to try to peacefully negotiate a ceasefire in Syria. It failed miserably. Obama has also denounced Assad's tyrannical government, but it was only his use of Chemical Weapons that brought Obama to my side of the argument. And it seems, if Assad had been more responsible we wouldn't be discussing intervention. IMO Obama is much more cautious than you all give him credit for. While I've been clamoring for true Syrian Aid, he's been talking strongly but acting more neutrally.

And then you add this:

[quote="Juan_Bottom"]


Which is cool exept that we're isolationist with respect to certain countries and not others, which doesn't really jive with your "let freedom ring" foreign policy. And this is what I'm having trouble with. On the one hand, intervention in Syria is justified under a humanitarian reasoning. On the other hand, we won't intervene in other conflicts for humanitarian reasons. So there must be something else, like U.S. hegemony. But U.S. hegemony is a bad reason to intervene, so supporters of the Syrian intervention must point back to humanitarian reasons, which starts the circle again.

Nevermind that humanitarian reasons were stated for intervention in Iraq, among other places, and the president and Congress was roundly criticized after the fact.

This all smells bad. It's hypocritical, it's completely antithetical to stated foriegn policy, it's completely antithetical to U.S. popular opinion, it costs too much, and it has no assurance of doing what we want it to do (either humanitarian or hegemonic).

[saxitoxin]

The FSA is united, and their first goal is to oust Assad.

Opposition forces battling Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria now number around 100,000 fighters, but after more than two years of fighting they are fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands.

No this is fine, and generally supports what I've already said.

Juan, you may not realize this with your limited grasp of geography, but Syria does not occupy "the region" and there is no such thing as "ZE ARABS!" The link says exactly this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

No it does not, you forgot to do your research. If you bothered to follow your web page's source, you would have found this:

That level of support is not mirrored elsewhere in the region, with 81 percent of Arabs wanting President Assad to step down. They believe Syria would be better off if free democratic elections were held under the supervision of a transitional government.

The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

There is no such thing as "TEH ARABS." What Hungarians think of Italy's president doesn't matter who the Italian president is; what Poles think of the French president doesn't matter who France's president is; what the Saudis think of Syria's president doesn't matter who Syria's president is. Your particularly virulent style of racism - where all Arabs are simply a robotic monolith, an abstract caricature - is so entrenched in your thinking it just makes me wanna puke.

The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay." (Juan: "I know better than those sand *&%$#@!.")

[saxitoxin]

The great Democratic congressman Dr. Jim McDermott, just held a Town Hall in his home district that was attended by a SRO crowd of more than 1,000 progressives who spoke TRUTH TO POWER and told him to oppose Obama/Israel's war against the Syrian people and then to impeach Obama. The best part began at 3:17.

cue Juan_Hasbara: "No, if you actually listened to it, several of the speakers blinked which may have been a wink, so actually your video shows there is wide support for Obama/Israel's war against the Syrian people. Just like I've been saying."

[Qwert]

Well if we go with this logic. Neighbors of Izrael, also in huge % dont like Israel, and they want to see them dispersed.

Saudi Arabia-Quatar-Bahrein-Jordan>> they dont vote for who will be in power in Syria, and also People of Syria dont decide who will be in power in this countries.
Maybe people of Syria dont like Regimes in this countries to?

[warmonger1981]

I would like to hear the UN declare that Assad did it. Why haven't they if he did? Wasnt the UN checking the gas attack from March anyways and not the most recent attack that everyone is bitching about?

[Juan_Bottom]

Which is cool exept that we're isolationist with respect to certain countries and not others, which doesn't really jive with your "let freedom ring" foreign policy. And this is what I'm having trouble with. On the one hand, intervention in Syria is justified under a humanitarian reasoning. On the other hand, we won't intervene in other conflicts for humanitarian reasons. So there must be something else, like U.S. hegemony. But U.S. hegemony is a bad reason to intervene, so supporters of the Syrian intervention must point back to humanitarian reasons, which starts the circle again.

Nevermind that humanitarian reasons were stated for intervention in Iraq, among other places, and the president and Congress was roundly criticized after the fact.

This all smells bad. It's hypocritical, it's completely antithetical to stated foriegn policy, it's completely antithetical to U.S. popular opinion, it costs too much, and it has no assurance of doing what we want it to do (either humanitarian or hegemonic).

I discussed this hegemony, and the correct time when isolationism is accepted in the very post you quoted. You completely ignored it. I can explain this, but you need to do your own thinking.

The picture was about illustrating that Isolationism is inherently problematic when, like Syria, helping is a relatively simple task and to do nothing means aiding the oppressor. And for another example, when you're the one being targeted, there's no doubt you'd like someone to come to your aid. Hence, inherent ethical problems. If we stand by while Assad gasses the entire country to maintain his grip on power, then we will have no right to protest ourselves when terrorists or the state gas us as well. As we have 600+ military bases around the globe, and many embassys, and a lot of corporate assets, this is a very real danger to our people. As Niemöller said, who will be left to speak for you? Never in the history of our peoples has anyone erected a statue to the man who sat on his ass and watched.

How are we as people ever going to ascend when we always defend our inaction by saying "It's none of my business"

[Juan_Bottom]

]
The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

There is no such thing as "TEH ARABS." What Hungarians think of Italy's president doesn't matter who the Italian president is; what Poles think of the French president doesn't matter who France's president is; what the Saudis think of Syria's president doesn't matter who Syria's president is. Your particularly virulent style of racism - where all Arabs are simply a robotic monolith, an abstract caricature - is so entrenched in your thinking it just makes me wanna puke.

The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay." (Juan: "I know better than those sand *&%$#@!.")

Yes it does.
It says that it's source isYouGov Siraj poll on Syria. Your source's source says this:

That level of support is not mirrored elsewhere in the region, with 81 percent of Arabs wanting President Assad to step down. They believe Syria would be better off if free democratic elections were held under the supervision of a transitional government.

The poll’s finding support the result of November’s Doha Debate in which 91 percent of the audience called for President Assad to resign.

I find this information much more revealing than yours, because as I said, Syria has almost the most restricted media in the world. people there have been abducted for saying mean things about your guy, Assad, on their Facebook pages. His totalitarian government monitors and censors all internet traffic and generally makes that NSA stuff you were bitching about irrelevant by comparison.


You're such a terrible troll.
There's no such thing as Arabs? There's an entire Middle Eastern Country named "United Arab Emirates."

C'mon and get real. You're so crazy with your posts that you're Glenn Becking yourself on CC. Next thing I know you're going to be trying to sell us products in your posts like he does on his show.

[warmonger1981]

Some people make money shamefully. Then there are people who just get funding from Soros, Gates, Koch Bro and major corporations. Just saying.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which is cool exept that we're isolationist with respect to certain countries and not others, which doesn't really jive with your "let freedom ring" foreign policy. And this is what I'm having trouble with. On the one hand, intervention in Syria is justified under a humanitarian reasoning. On the other hand, we won't intervene in other conflicts for humanitarian reasons. So there must be something else, like U.S. hegemony. But U.S. hegemony is a bad reason to intervene, so supporters of the Syrian intervention must point back to humanitarian reasons, which starts the circle again.

Nevermind that humanitarian reasons were stated for intervention in Iraq, among other places, and the president and Congress was roundly criticized after the fact.

This all smells bad. It's hypocritical, it's completely antithetical to stated foriegn policy, it's completely antithetical to U.S. popular opinion, it costs too much, and it has no assurance of doing what we want it to do (either humanitarian or hegemonic).

I discussed this hegemony, and the correct time when isolationism is accepted in the very post you quoted. You completely ignored it. I can explain this, but you need to do your own thinking.

The picture was about illustrating that Isolationism is inherently problematic when, like Syria, helping is a relatively simple task and to do nothing means aiding the oppressor. And for another example, when you're the one being targeted, there's no doubt you'd like someone to come to your aid. Hence, inherent ethical problems. If we stand by while Assad gasses the entire country to maintain his grip on power, then we will have no right to protest ourselves when terrorists or the state gas us as well. As we have 600+ military bases around the globe, and many embassys, and a lot of corporate assets, this is a very real danger to our people. As Niemöller said, who will be left to speak for you? Never in the history of our peoples has anyone erected a statue to the man who sat on his ass and watched.

How are we as people ever going to ascend when we always defend our inaction by saying "It's none of my business"

You're aiding the oppressor by not signing up for the US Armed Forces. Every day, you cause harm. That harm you create can be ended in short order--just a quick visit is all it takes!, and the pay isn't that bad.

[thegreekdog]

Which is cool exept that we're isolationist with respect to certain countries and not others, which doesn't really jive with your "let freedom ring" foreign policy. And this is what I'm having trouble with. On the one hand, intervention in Syria is justified under a humanitarian reasoning. On the other hand, we won't intervene in other conflicts for humanitarian reasons. So there must be something else, like U.S. hegemony. But U.S. hegemony is a bad reason to intervene, so supporters of the Syrian intervention must point back to humanitarian reasons, which starts the circle again.

Nevermind that humanitarian reasons were stated for intervention in Iraq, among other places, and the president and Congress was roundly criticized after the fact.

This all smells bad. It's hypocritical, it's completely antithetical to stated foriegn policy, it's completely antithetical to U.S. popular opinion, it costs too much, and it has no assurance of doing what we want it to do (either humanitarian or hegemonic).

I discussed this hegemony, and the correct time when isolationism is accepted in the very post you quoted. You completely ignored it. I can explain this, but you need to do your own thinking.

The picture was about illustrating that Isolationism is inherently problematic when, like Syria, helping is a relatively simple task and to do nothing means aiding the oppressor. And for another example, when you're the one being targeted, there's no doubt you'd like someone to come to your aid. Hence, inherent ethical problems. If we stand by while Assad gasses the entire country to maintain his grip on power, then we will have no right to protest ourselves when terrorists or the state gas us as well. As we have 600+ military bases around the globe, and many embassys, and a lot of corporate assets, this is a very real danger to our people. As Niemöller said, who will be left to speak for you? Never in the history of our peoples has anyone erected a statue to the man who sat on his ass and watched.

How are we as people ever going to ascend when we always defend our inaction by saying "It's none of my business"

Okay, you must be trolling now. All you did in this post (apart from the first paragraph) is reinforce that this is a humanitarian mission. You've yet to answer why it's humanitarian in Syria but not humane enough in other parts of the globe to intervene. And ultimately that's kind of where you fail here dude. I guess I'll say it again, fat lot of good it's done so far.

On the one hand, intervention in Syria is justified under a humanitarian reasoning. On the other hand, we won't intervene in other conflicts for humanitarian reasons. So there must be something else, like U.S. hegemony. But U.S. hegemony is a bad reason to intervene, so supporters of the Syrian intervention must point back to humanitarian reasons, which starts the circle again.

I think we need some sort of chart, but I'm not good at that stuff so I'll try a list (which I like to do).

(1) Bad things are happening in Syria (and other countries).
(2) We need to be interventionist because "to do nothing means aiding the oppressor and "when you're the one being targeted, there's no doubt you'd like someone to come to your aid" and "inherent ethical problems [of non-intervention]" and "who will be left to speak for you" and "how are we as a people ever going to ascend when we always defend our inaction by saying it's none of my business."
(3) We don't intervene in other parts of the globe where similar conflicts occur and we ignore the reasons stated in (2). This is inherently and unabashedly (from my perspective) hypocritical which leads me to...

(4) The unstated reason to intervene is to dominate the region. Military intervention in the context of hegemony or regional domination is seen as a bad thing, including by the people currently supportive of Syrian intervention (when it's not their ball to run with). This is also inherently and unabashely hypocritical and is unstated because the voting bloc of the Democratic Party is largely anti-war; so Democrats can't say that. And that leads me to the real problem (which I suppose I didn't get to yet because I'm still trying to figure out the real reason for this intervention):

(5) When both major political parties are supportive of intervention for expanionist reasons there is no longer a choice between political parties. Combine this with the parties' unstated agreement on increasing the size of the federal government, increasing taxes, increasing spending, giving regulatory and tax breaks to favored lobbyists, and the erosion of civil liberties, and voters are left to choose between the party that is supportive of gay marriage and abortion versus the party that is not supportive of gay marriage and abortion.

[saxitoxin]

]
The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

There is no such thing as "TEH ARABS." What Hungarians think of Italy's president doesn't matter who the Italian president is; what Poles think of the French president doesn't matter who France's president is; what the Saudis think of Syria's president doesn't matter who Syria's president is. Your particularly virulent style of racism - where all Arabs are simply a robotic monolith, an abstract caricature - is so entrenched in your thinking it just makes me wanna puke.

The link says this: "Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay." (Juan: "I know better than those sand *&%$#@!.")

Yes it does.
It says that it's source isYouGov Siraj poll on Syria. Your source's source says this:

That level of support is not mirrored elsewhere in the region, with 81 percent of Arabs wanting President Assad to step down. They believe Syria would be better off if free democratic elections were held under the supervision of a transitional government.

The poll’s finding support the result of November’s Doha Debate in which 91 percent of the audience called for President Assad to resign.

I find this information much more revealing than yours, because as I said, Syria has almost the most restricted media in the world. people there have been abducted for saying mean things about your guy, Assad, on their Facebook pages. His totalitarian government monitors and censors all internet traffic and generally makes that NSA stuff you were bitching about irrelevant by comparison.


You're such a terrible troll.
There's no such thing as Arabs? There's an entire Middle Eastern Country named "United Arab Emirates."

C'mon and get real. You're so crazy with your posts that you're Glenn Becking yourself on CC. Next thing I know you're going to be trying to sell us products in your posts like he does on his show.

For the third time, there is no such thing as "TEH ARABZ." Arabs are an ethnic umbrella group with linguistic, religious and historical differences among constituent nations. Arabs are not shot out of an assembly line on a form press like you, and the other racists, seem to think. You, Juan, would never say "Germans, Finns and French - they're basically all the same." But you have no problem fronting the same argument about non-whites. They all look the same to you, after all, right? Your ignorant, Neanderthal rambling gets more offensive and puerile by the word.

Saudis, Bahrainis and Qataris don't get to pick the Syrian government. Syria is for Syrians. If you don't like whom they've chosen, you have the freedom to STFU.

The link says this: "55% of Syrians want Assad to stay."

[saxitoxin]

WEARING A THAWB? MAYBE SAUDI. MAYBE FUJAIRAHI. BUT NOT A SYRIAN.


LOOK AT THOSE STUPID ITALIANS:

[saxitoxin]

Remember Elizabeth O'Bagy - the "Syria Expert" (26 year old woman who lied about having a Ph.D., doesn't speak Arabic, and has only been to the Levant once) - that Juan_Bottom and John Kerry got all their info from before she was outed? The war machine is still using her as a source ...

Sen. John McCain has hired Elizabeth O'Bagy, the Syria analyst in Washington who was fired for padding her credentials, The Cable has learned. She begins work Monday as a legislative assistant in McCain's office. Several media organizations reported that O'Bagy was enrolled in a Ph.D. program, but a subsequent investigative report by ThinkProgress found that was not the case. "Either O'Bagy was at one point enrolled a PhD program and dropped out, or she has been lying the entire time," the site reported.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... beth_obagy

The dumb 'n dumber anti-intellectualism of Juan and his fellow Chickenhawks gets funnier by the day.

[saxitoxin]

The Libyan people are Pro-USA because we helped them oust their Dictator. I consider that a success.

Earlier this morning, the U.S. puppet government in Tripoli was deposed in a coup - it's unclear which of the basketcase governments-of-the-hour in Libya is now running the country -

Gunmen from a former rebel faction kidnapped Libya's prime minister on Thursday in reprisal for the government's role in the U.S. capture of a top al Qaeda suspect, shattering a fragile peace. The militia, which had been hired by the government to provide security in Tripoli, said it "arrested" Ali Zeidan after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed Libya's role in the weekend capture in the city of Abu Anas al-Liby.

"His arrest comes after ... (Kerry) said the Libyan government was aware of the operation," a spokesman for the group, known as the Operations Room of Libya's Revolutionaries, told Reuters.

Al-Arabiya television channel quoted Libya's justice minister as saying that Zeidan had been "kidnapped" and showed what it said were video stills of Zeidan frowning and wearing a grey shirt undone at the collar surrounded by several men in civilian clothes pressing closely around him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/ ... 2M20131010

Prime Minister Zeidan was barely Libyan, he'd spent three decades outside the country living in the finest hotels in Paris and Geneva, then dropped back into the country when it became lucrative to "lead" a people he barely knew as a corporate-backed strongman - after Obama bombed Libya to smithereens and there were oil franchises to award to Chevron/Exxon, and rebuilding contracts to give to U.S. construction firms.

[2dimes]

Is he going to be teaching at Harvard later?

[muy_thaiguy]

Here's another relevant article.

http://news.yahoo.com/rights-group-accu ... 11163.html

[patches70]

I think JB will need to come in and spin this.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... malertNEWS

General Salim Idris who is was the leader of the Free Syrian Army has been run out of Syria by the more extremist Al Aqeda backed rebel factions and then took over key warehouses containing US supplied military gear.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 7247,d.eW0

Gen. Idris flew to the Qatari capital of Doha on Sunday after fleeing to Turkey, U.S. officials said Wednesday. "He fled as a result of the Islamic Front taking over his headquarters," a senior U.S. official said.

An Islamic Front spokesman also said Gen. Idris had fled to Turkey.

The Front took over the warehouses and offices controlled by the Supreme Military Council, the moderate opposition umbrella group that includes the FSA and coordinates U.S. aid distribution, officials said. They also seized the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey, near the warehouses in the town of Atmeh.

There was no actual fighting, as the FSA couldn't even protect the warehouses in the first place-

U.S. officials say there was no battle for control of the facilities between the SMC and the Islamic Front. One senior U.S. official said the takeover amounted to "an internal coup." But other U.S. officials disputed that characterization.

U.S. officials said the Islamic Front offered to help protect the headquarters and two warehouse facilities from harder line groups. Then, when the Islamic Front came in and helped secure the sites, "they asserted themselves and said: 'All right, we're taking over,' " a senior U.S. official said.

So pretty much when we delivered weapons and supplies to one rebel faction, they went ahead and turned over that equipment to another faction (one much more hostile to the US).

It appears that the US State department has finally come to the conclusion some of us had already come to long ago-

The U.S. decision to suspend the delivery of nonlethal aid to rebels in northern Syria is another blow to American efforts to strengthen and unify insurgents fighting Bashar al-Assad, analysts say.

The State Department said Wednesday it made the decision after Islamist groups within the opposition captured a warehouse and headquarters of the mainstream opposition alliance backed United States.

The decision reflects the challenge the United States has in supporting a fractured opposition where extremist groups are gaining an edge over moderates.

"There is simply no way to separate the two," said Michael Rubin, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

That conclusion being that the US arming of supposed moderate rebel factions will just lead to much more extreme and dangerous factions getting their hands on that equipment.

So, how is this to be spun?