| YourValentine 30.08.2013 17:52 |
Hi, it's me - Barack Obama, peace nobel prize winner. Please be warned that in a few days my military forces will kill a few hundreds or thousands of you. The reason we will throw bombs on your houses is that we must punish your dictator for the gas attacks against your families. Do not get your hopes high - we won't free you of Assad or even weaken the rebels considerably - that is not in our national interest. It will only be two or three days of bombing in order to show the dictator that he cannot kill you without international reaction, after all he does not have the monopoly on killing Syrian civilians! . Also, we have no UN mandate, so we can only draw the humanitarian card, sorry. Cameron the pussy pushed me into action but now he does not help claiming that his parliament does not allow it, very funny. Since when do you ask the parliament when you want to kill people in other countries? You simply send drones or special forces and kill them, end of story. Of course I know that he only wanted to deflect public criticism from his attack on the freedom of UK citizens, good plan. I think not many attention has been paid to our NSA activities lately, either. Thanks for helping me out of this - even involuntarily. You might ask why we did not do anything in the last 2 years when already 100 000 Syríans have been killed in the civil war but these people were killed with conventional weapons - many of these had been sold to Assad by Western countries - really good and effective weapons. Killing people with conventional weapons is not against our ethical values - we do that every day. But a red line was crossed with that gas attack - or at least I said something to that effect a while ago and now people hold that against me. What can I do - either I bomb your homes or I lose my face and you really cannot ask that from me. You may get the feeling we have no real goal or plan and that is completetly right. But I must do something or else I will look like the total loser when I have to go to the G 20 summit next week and face this guy Putin. Trust me, it won't take long, just take cover. Yours truly B.O. |
| The Real Wizard 30.08.2013 20:55 |
YourValentine wrote: You might ask why we did not do anything in the last 2 years when already 100 000 Syríans have been killed in the civil war but these people were killed with conventional weapons - many of these had been sold to Assad by Western countries - really good and effective weapons.Well played. |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.08.2013 05:19 |
So YV, what's your point? Should we do nothing? I don't know what the American plans are, but I doubt even the American military is stupid enough to still believe that launching a few tomahawks will be very effective after Assad's men have evacuated most significant command centers and have secured the chemical weapons, however, I don't see them doing anything very useful either (though quite possibly some very stupid things to aggravate matters), so the rest of the western world needs to consider its options. I think we are obliged to intervene, and we should have done so almost two years ago. I am of the opinion that Russia and China are deliberately and systematically sabotaging the United Nations and must therefore be ignored. Those countries that do feel a responsibility to stop the carnage ought to create a no-fly zone over the entirety of Syria (so that firebombings like the one that took place yesterday, on a crowded schoolyard can no longer take place). Following this, a safe corridor should be created to allow anyone who wants to to flee the fighting. Through this same corridor, medical attention should be given to anyone who needs it, regardless of affiliation (and, on a related note, we should help Israeli hospitals (*NOT* the Israeli government) to foot the bill for treating the many Syrian refugees who come there seeking very necessary but also very expensive medical treatment). When this is in place, we should attempt to disarm as much of Syria as possible, meanwhile exerting the maximum of pressure on all sides to cease fire and start negotiations, while securing, removing and safely destroying any chemical weapons that are encountered. It is very important that we do the utmost to prevent ethnic cleansings (with Kurds in the north, Alevites and Sunni's throughout the country, small groups of orthodox/coptic Christians, this is not unlikely) and I personally feel that the Kurds in the north are entitled to our help. first of all because they are by far the most secular and emancipated group in Syria, hated by both Assad and anti-Assad radicals, and second of all because Turkey is just itching to get at them under the guise of striking against Assad. I don't think military intervention alone will do much good, but we can't just stand by and let the massacre of an entire nation take place under the eyes of the international community. Even aside from the ethical implications (and they are by far the most important, I feel), if we allow this conflict to drag on, it will escalate further and may well spread to neighboring regions. There will then be a continuous conflict zone all the way from Libya to Afghanistan, which will likely drag both Iran and Turkey into the conflict if it goes unchecked. Yes, we run the risk of Iraq 2003 by intervening (although the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a certainty where the WMDs in Iraq were purely fictional). By not intervening, we run a risk of another Munich 1938. It is a very difficult scenario indeed, and we are faced with the damnable scenario of having to choose between a variety of bad alternatives. However, standing by and talking about it will not just lead to a continuation of bloodshed on an apocalyptic scale, it might just create another World War. |
| YourValentine 02.09.2013 09:07 |
You have quite far reaching ambitions for what the international community should achieve in Syra and I applaud you for that. I wish the so-called world leaders had similar ambitions. Unfortunately, neither Russia-China-Iran nor the USA-EU-Gulf States are in fact interested in saving Syrian lives. If they were interested they would not have watched a de-facto genocide in Syria in the last 2 years. It's only about oil and gas pipe lines and everything else is just propaganda. In Europe we are more brainwashed by the Western media and therefore we really believe the Russians are the bad guys but they are protecting their gas sales to Europe monopoly just as the Saudis and Quatar want Assad gone in order to be able to lead their pipes through Syria into Turkey/Europe. The stability of Gulf oil supply is the main concern for the USA and Europe. Do not get fooled by the pretended concern for Human life by our politicians, it's all money and nothing else. If Europe, the USA or the Arab League really would want to end the blood shed in Syria they would TALK with Russia, with Iran, even with Assad. |
| The Real Wizard 02.09.2013 11:35 |
As far as I can see it, Obama simply wants to hold onto what little "superpower" status the US still has. If they walk away from Syria being hailed as heroes, it will simply delay the inevitable. The US empire is falling, and fast. |
| brENsKi 02.09.2013 13:53 |
since Rome first started ritual slaughter, rape and pillage in the name of "civilization"..over the last 2,000 yrs many countries have been world caretaker.... France, Spain, us (UK), Germany, Austria and a few others besides...It's currently America who are the "Holy Roman Empire" - and they're doing no better or worse than any previous "world ruler"....not condoning or condemning them personally, I'm waiting to see what kind of job China or Islam make of it, when they grab the baton. |
| inu-liger 02.09.2013 15:00 |
Surely China would still do a mildly better job than (extremist) Islam... though still not a good job either way in the first place |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.09.2013 15:24 |
So... since no one intervened in Syria's civil war at the start, no one should intervene now when internationally banned weapons have been used against the citizens of that country? Really? I'd hate to see the US involved in yet another war - and it's clear no one else is interested in dirtying their hands with this, just bullshitting about what the US should or shouldn't do - but I'd hate it more if the US and the rest of the world stood by without some effort to punish the Assad regime for the use of those outlawed weapons, or to, at least, lessen the chances of the regime being able to use them against the Syrian people again. |
| brENsKi 02.09.2013 16:08 |
edit - double post |
| brENsKi 02.09.2013 16:10 |
it's a no-win situation intervention? damned if you do, damned if you don't. anyone remember saddam hussein? yes, he was the one who GW Bush's father helped install, yet GW boots him out. and what happens when you remove tyrannical dictators like Assad? well, democracy is all well and good...until a large minority take a dislike to the democratically elected leader...look no further than egypt for the best ever example of "don't like him, i didn't vote for him, so i think i'll start a fucking civil war".... sad fact: the whole world wants democracy - but 99.9% of it is unable to live with it |
| YourValentine 03.09.2013 01:25 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: So... since no one intervened in Syria's civil war at the start, no one should intervene now when internationally banned weapons have been used against the citizens of that country? Really? I'd hate to see the US involved in yet another war - and it's clear no one else is interested in dirtying their hands with this, just bullshitting about what the US should or shouldn't do - but I'd hate it more if the US and the rest of the world stood by without some effort to punish the Assad regime for the use of those outlawed weapons, or to, at least, lessen the chances of the regime being able to use them against the Syrian people again. The whole international community should have intervened - two years ago! By talking and finding a diplomatic solution for the country. Which kind of intervention can the US do now? They talk about a limited military strike of two or three days not intending to remove the regime. So what will happen in those two or three days? The regime will hide and more innocent people will die. Russia is a partner of Syria like Israel is a partner of the USA. What would the USA do if Russia bombed Israel? Certainly they would not stand by and watch. So, what will Russia do? We do not know but an escalation is always more likely when third countries intervene with military force. We should not forget that a big part of the Syrian people is on the side of the Asssad regime and a big part of the so-called "rebels" are fanatic killers, as well. Half of the refugees fled from the rebels and not from Assad - for example Syrian Christians. Imo there is no alternative to talking and working out an international peace solution but unfortunately nobody has even started to talk yet. I hate the cynicism and lack of compassion of our politicians. For once they should remove the oil dollars from their minds and help the poor people in Syra. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 03.09.2013 06:38 |
All "should haves" are irrelevant. Now, after the illegal use of chemical weapons, the international community - not the US alone - has a responsibility to act. We should all worry about Russia - and China and Iran. But we should also worry about chemical weapons winding up in the hands of the fanatics who have mingled with the rebels.
The example of Russia attacking Israel is incomplete. If they indiscriminately attacked Israel, the US would respond and a world war would ensue. If Israel used chemical weapons against its own people, however, even the US would have to somehow intervene.
brENsKi wrote: it's a no-win situationThis is the bottom line. And it sucks. |
| YourValentine 04.09.2013 02:59 |
What would a military strike achieve in your opinion? Who would be killed and what would be the outcome? How can it be a punishment for the Assad regime when more innocent victims are killed? Would you personally take responsibility for killing these innocent people? You are right "would haves" and "should haves" do not matter now but for once the international community should come together and find a peaceful outcome. |
| brENsKi 04.09.2013 03:14 |
Barb i'm not particularly for or against military action. but what would be your solution? because as far as i can see - you allow the status quo to prevail OR you oust the current regime. there is no other option. it's not as if Assad will wake up one morning and say "you know what? i've been wrong all these years, i'm a bastard, i'm sorry and i'm stepping down, i hope you'll all forgive me" and it's not as if the rebels have a chance of ousting him - while they are not allowed to fight on a equal terms. everytime they make any headway, he presses the "chemical option" button and seizes control again. on the basis of the above: military intervention is the only option, and innocent human life is the price that gets paid. |
| YourValentine 04.09.2013 05:01 |
I do not have a solution. I also do not have the facts that you have - I do not know who pressed this "chemical button" - in Germany the press claims that the attack was an "accident" according to information obtained by the BND (German secret service). I do not say it is true but I do not have any serious information about the actual situation in Syria, the military strength of the Assad regime or the so-called rebels. I watch TV and read the press and one thing is obvious: if Russia and the West would agree on a common Syria policy Assad could not fight this international agreement, he would have to oblige. However - neither Russia nor the West are in fact interested in saving lives in Syria - they are only bothered about their economical an geopolitical interests. Russia wants to preserve their monopoly in gas supply for Europe while the Gulf states want to build their gas pipes via Syria/Turkey - which Assad does not allow in order to protect the economical interests of his ally. The USA and Europe are interested in the stability of the oil supply from the their main allies, the Gulf states. If they all cared about the victims in the Syrian civil war they would work together. What would happen if the USA topples the Assad regime in Syria? Probably the same that has been happening in Iraq since 2003: ongoing civil war with thousands and thousands of victims (Look up "Iraq body count"), a country in ruins, a people with no future and no perspective. Military force cannot bring peace in the Middle East, we have seen that over again. |
| brENsKi 04.09.2013 05:55 |
i am not in possession of any more facts than yourself. but the only other option is that the rebels gassed themselves to claim Assad did it. now i can (like everyone else) can see how that "could" work...but it's much more likely that if that were the case then the truth would out at some point and the rebel leaders would then lose credibility among their own, and any uprising then dies. tyrannical dictators do not stand down because observers say "ooh you're not nice, can we have someone else please" the very nature of their character leaves little else but military intervention to overthrow these despots. and it doesn't matter whether it's civil or international the solution (unfortunately) is a one-size-fits-all hitler, amin, saddam, pol pot, pasha, milosevic,...the list is extremely long (in the complete absence of any other solution) we are left with military action as regards Russia - well, they've come as close as they can to condemning what's going on - see today's international news. however, regardless of oil/gas/economic interests - a universal condemnation would not work - or help to remove Assad - it would merely create greater tensions and further isolate Israel. |
| YourValentine 04.09.2013 06:14 |
Another story has been reported on a German economy website: Saudi Arabia brought the gas to Syria and through mishandling the tragedy happened killing 12 terrorists in the process. Unfortunately, the original article creates an error link so we cannot read it anymore - funny, isn't it. I am NOT claiming that this is the truth but I do not trust the US when they claim they know the truth. I think nobody outside the USA does believe them, even English members of parliament asked for actual proof and do not take the word of the American government anymore. |
| brENsKi 04.09.2013 06:31 |
YourValentine wrote: . I think nobody outside the USA does believe them, even English members of parliament asked for actual proof and do not take the word of the American government anymore.you are a little misguided if you think distrust of America is the reason for the English (sic) parliament asking for proof. the reason is quite simple: Cameron's position as statesman is under question - even the (lunatic tory press/comic) is turning against him in recent months, therefore he needed to put his name in the history books like some "mini-thatcher"...no other reason. Milliband was starting lose ground with voters so preened and postured so he could preach he'd "done the right thing" Cameron's party don;t think he can win the next election (let's face it he came to power without a majority) so 30+ backbenchers opposed his "vote" to make him look foolish and non-credible as a leader. the tory/lib dem coalition has 359 seats. to carry this vote they needed 326 in agreement. they lost by 13 (285/272) which included many abstentions and non-voters....make of that what you will |
| magicalfreddiemercury 04.09.2013 06:45 |
YourValentine wrote: What would a military strike achieve in your opinion? Who would be killed and what would be the outcome? How can it be a punishment for the Assad regime when more innocent victims are killed? Would you personally take responsibility for killing these innocent people? You are right "would haves" and "should haves" do not matter now but for once the international community should come together and find a peaceful outcome.I am not privy to the attack plans but would hope a strike would take out the chemical weapon delivery capabilities, if not the chemical weapons themselves – though I have no idea how those weapons can be safely destroyed. And no, I would not take personal responsibility for any innocents caught in a military strike any more than I would guess you would take personal responsibility for anyone caught in another chemical weapons attack if nothing is done. Your distrust and disgust of and for the US is clear – and not completely without merit. However, to see what was done to those people and still believe a peaceful outcome is possible, while hopeful, sounds naïve to me. Even though, I would guess, most of us wish it could be that way, we know it can’t. I think the blood already shed is proof of that. |
| YourValentine 04.09.2013 07:24 |
Thanks for the explanation, brensky and sorry if I offended you - the guys looked "English" to me (I watched on BBC website) @magical - I do not have a disgust for "the US", I do have a disgust and very strong distrust for the political class in the USA, Europe, Russia, China and everywhere else. I am sick and tired of being lied at, tired of regimes spying on me, tired of being used as an excuse. I do not feel guilty about the victims in Syria because there is nothing I could have done to prevent it but I feel sick to my stomach watching the genocide and not seeing the slightest effort to solve the situation peacefully. The difference between you and me is that you believe that a military strike would bring improvement and I do not believe that. Military strikes did not help in Palestine, in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much profit in just helping the people. |
| brENsKi 04.09.2013 07:49 |
YourValentine wrote: Thanks for the explanation, brensky and sorry if I offended you - the guys looked "English" to me (I watched on BBC website) I do not feel guilty about the victims in Syria because there is nothing I could have done to prevent it but I feel sick to my stomach watching the genocide and not seeing the slightest effort to solve the situation peacefully. The difference between you and me is that you believe that a military strike would bring improvement and I do not believe that..Barb I'm not offended - i dislike our leaders immensely. most of them are (by default) english - but there's also scots, welsh, and norther irish m.p.s- but they all have the same thing in common - their ignorant bastards, who jumped on board the "hypocrisy gravy train" pigging at the trough in the "first class buffet carriage for c*nts" the cabinet (senior ministers) are generally inadequate examples of humanity coming from cossetted privileged inherited wealth, educated at Eton and Harrow - which teaches the cost of everything and the value of f-all. think the main point here is that time and history - Serbia, Darfur, and many many other holocausts were completely and utterly unstoppable without military action...lunatics and despots DO NOT listen to reasoned argument - until it's accompanied by a missile strike - direct to their fucking nasty fat c*nt faces |
| magicalfreddiemercury 04.09.2013 11:28 |
YourValentine wrote: If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much profit in just helping the people.With this, I completely agree. |
| Donna13 04.09.2013 12:28 |
It is interesting to watch this unfold. The French would be unwilling to act on their own, so are waiting for the Americans to vote. The Americans probably wouldn't be voting if not for the UK vote. Putin is probably hiding Russian intelligence reports from being announced. If anyone's credibility is in question, at this point, it would be Putin. And he knows it. The G20 would be interesting ( if we could listen in). By the way, the Germans were able to intercept a telephone call: link Since everyone has an opinion, here is mine: we should have gone in with the military long ago, with UN approval (which never happened), but at this point, I think going through the UN still makes the most sense (getting international approval and cooperation). Although a military strike is one option, it is not too late (I think) for negotiations with the goal of getting Syrian government allies to stop supplying weapons to the Syrian government and to start putting pressure on them to find a peaceful solution. We need a break in the fighting (maybe impossible). Then of course additional humanitarian assistance to those displaced by the war. And UN peacekeeping forces in Syria (boots on the ground). War crimes need to be dealt with (Assad), so if he could be captured (Navy Seals?), that would be good. No problem, right? But I think if it were just about oil and gas, there would have been a faster intervention. I don't know why there has been such hesitation over trying to stop the fighting, other than the economy maybe seeming more important and all governments realizing that we just can't afford to be constantly fighting hopeless wars where nobody ever surrenders (which seems to be the middle east tradition). And the problems of international coordination and agreement with Russia and China on the UN security council. Well, I hope it all gets settled in the best way and safest way. |
| brENsKi 04.09.2013 13:24 |
i haven't offered an opinion...just observations but one thing i would say: it can't just be about oil/gas....the events in Libya rule that out |
| The Real Wizard 04.09.2013 22:08 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:I as well.YourValentine wrote: If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much profit in just helping the people.With this, I completely agree. I think the most telling thing here is the fact that the US has only one ally for this mission - France. This clearly reveals how much damage the Bush administration did to the US' international reputation. And France, of all countries. Sarkozy's France would've even made sense, but Hollande's socialist France? Bizarre, to say the least. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.09.2013 01:41 |
Many of the media are leaving this out, but probably the most loyal (or at least supportive) of the US allies right now is Turkey. However, they also have their own pro-Muslim Brotherhood president and anti-Kurd motives, which means they are a dangerous and not wholly trustworthy ally in this case. The main problem with allies does not seem to be a lack of faith in the US, but such a thorough paranoia towards all muslims that a majority of the people in the west are quite willing to believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories in which all of Syria (except Assad and his men) consists of Islamic fanatics who are staging all kinds of atrocities to lure the west towards them only to massacre all of the west. It doesn't make any sense, but this is what increasing numbers of people seem to believe (for the sake of argument, I've combined a number of separate views into one whole here). Ever since 9/11, there has been a massive resurgence of paranoia and mistrust towards all news reporting, and a highly disturbing growth in conspiracy theories and the number of people who believe them. I think this is a much more important than the US standing in deciding whether or not individual countries support the US here. @Bob: It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI. |
| thomasquinn 32989 05.09.2013 06:41 |
To illustrate my point about paranoia: Britain's resident nutjob David Icke (the guy who claims Elizabeth II, Tony Blair and George W. Bush are descended from alien lizards who secretly rule the world) says Syria is "another false flag operation" (conspiracy nuts' favorite term since they learned it around 2003). This gets posted on a Dutch news/discussion site, and the responses? Roughly 80% of the people don't give a damn that he's the king of conspiracy theories so absurd that even most hardcore conspiracy theorists don't want anything to do with him, and enthusiastically support his dribble. link (google translate: link People have become so paranoid that a large section, possibly a majority, will rally around freaks like this rather than accept a glaringly obvious reality. It's things like this that make me utterly depressed about the stupidity of the masses. |
| The Real Wizard 05.09.2013 12:56 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI.Fair play. You and your "rational" responses. It's just unusual behaviour for this place. Thank you for always being bang on. |
| The Real Wizard 05.09.2013 13:00 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: People have become so paranoid that a large section, possibly a majority, will rally around freaks like this rather than accept a glaringly obvious reality. It's things like this that make me utterly depressed about the stupidity of the masses.Nah, don't be so glum. Icke is a complete crackpot, and most people know it. It's only a minority of people who will listen to guys like him who are that "out there." That said, I do share your concern that even very rational people are just searching for any alternative to whatever mainstream media says. But I'd like to think that the availability of virtually everything on the internet is arming more and more people with basic researching capabilities. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 06.09.2013 06:33 |
The Real Wizard wrote: You and your "rational" responses. It's just unusual behaviour for this place.Hey! |
| YourValentine 08.09.2013 10:22 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Many of the media are leaving this out, but probably the most loyal (or at least supportive) of the US allies right now is Turkey. However, they also have their own pro-Muslim Brotherhood president and anti-Kurd motives, which means they are a dangerous and not wholly trustworthy ally in this case. The main problem with allies does not seem to be a lack of faith in the US, but such a thorough paranoia towards all muslims that a majority of the people in the west are quite willing to believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories in which all of Syria (except Assad and his men) consists of Islamic fanatics who are staging all kinds of atrocities to lure the west towards them only to massacre all of the west. It doesn't make any sense, but this is what increasing numbers of people seem to believe (for the sake of argument, I've combined a number of separate views into one whole here). Ever since 9/11, there has been a massive resurgence of paranoia and mistrust towards all news reporting, and a highly disturbing growth in conspiracy theories and the number of people who believe them. I think this is a much more important than the US standing in deciding whether or not individual countries support the US here. @Bob: It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI. I think it only complicates an already complicated matter even further if you introduce conspiracy theorists. I do not think it takes much of a conspiracy theory to think that Saudi Arabia may well behind the gas attack - just ask yourself: Cui bono? Read the articles in the Wall Street paper and The Guardian about the Saudi interests in toppling the Assad regime and watch how Obama changed his attitude towards the role of the USA in Syria during recent months. He looks more like someone who has been pushed into the war lord position than someone who follows his own beliefs, don't you think? In his first term Obama seemed to be determined to stop policing the Middle East but now he looks like someone who is forced to to the dirty work because he cannot possibly "lose his face" after drawing this ominous "red line". But notwithstanding who commited the atrocity in Syria - what exactly do you expect a military strike can achieve? Just look at Afghanistan - NATO has been fighting there for 12 long years now - this is twice as long as WW2 lasted and nothing has been achieved, there is no peace in Afghanistan at all. As soon as the NATO troops will leave the country the Taliban will return and nothing will have been improved because the life of the Afghanistan people has not improved and young men will see their only future in taking to arms in one of the militia. The same is true for Iraq: in Iraq people are killed on a daily basis , the country is in ruins and each day more people lose their hope in this ongoing terror and war. You do not need to be a fan of dictators like Saddam Hussein or Assad or Mubarak to wonder which is the lesser evil for the people who live in such countries. More Syrian people flee the country since the US miltary strike is hanging over their heads - we need a peaceful solution, there is no other hope. There must be a dialogue with Russia and mainly Iran to find a solution for the region, the hostile "we do not talk to xyz and rather flatten the next country" simply has to stop. |
| The Real Wizard 08.09.2013 21:27 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:OK, slightly less unusual :-)The Real Wizard wrote: You and your "rational" responses. It's just unusual behaviour for this place.Hey! |
| The Real Wizard 08.09.2013 21:27 |
I'll just add this and slowly back away... link |
| john bodega 09.09.2013 00:53 |
I can't help but think that all of these countries need to fix themselves. Sounds awful, but honestly I don't think the US gets the idea of 'helping out'. My other thought, though, is that there has to be a better way of screwing a guy like Assad. To my mind there isn't even a reason to fire a shot at these idiots. Anything you can do with a bullet can be done with money. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.09.2013 03:59 |
YourValentine wrote:thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Many of the media are leaving this out, but probably the most loyal (or at least supportive) of the US allies right now is Turkey. However, they also have their own pro-Muslim Brotherhood president and anti-Kurd motives, which means they are a dangerous and not wholly trustworthy ally in this case. The main problem with allies does not seem to be a lack of faith in the US, but such a thorough paranoia towards all muslims that a majority of the people in the west are quite willing to believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories in which all of Syria (except Assad and his men) consists of Islamic fanatics who are staging all kinds of atrocities to lure the west towards them only to massacre all of the west. It doesn't make any sense, but this is what increasing numbers of people seem to believe (for the sake of argument, I've combined a number of separate views into one whole here). Ever since 9/11, there has been a massive resurgence of paranoia and mistrust towards all news reporting, and a highly disturbing growth in conspiracy theories and the number of people who believe them. I think this is a much more important than the US standing in deciding whether or not individual countries support the US here. @Bob: It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI.I think it only complicates an already complicated matter even further if you introduce conspiracy theorists. I do not think it takes much of a conspiracy theory to think that Saudi Arabia may well behind the gas attack - just ask yourself: Cui bono? Read the articles in the Wall Street paper and The Guardian about the Saudi interests in toppling the Assad regime and watch how Obama changed his attitude towards the role of the USA in Syria during recent months. He looks more like someone who has been pushed into the war lord position than someone who follows his own beliefs, don't you think? In his first term Obama seemed to be determined to stop policing the Middle East but now he looks like someone who is forced to to the dirty work because he cannot possibly "lose his face" after drawing this ominous "red line". But notwithstanding who commited the atrocity in Syria - what exactly do you expect a military strike can achieve? Just look at Afghanistan - NATO has been fighting there for 12 long years now - this is twice as long as WW2 lasted and nothing has been achieved, there is no peace in Afghanistan at all. As soon as the NATO troops will leave the country the Taliban will return and nothing will have been improved because the life of the Afghanistan people has not improved and young men will see their only future in taking to arms in one of the militia. The same is true for Iraq: in Iraq people are killed on a daily basis , the country is in ruins and each day more people lose their hope in this ongoing terror and war. You do not need to be a fan of dictators like Saddam Hussein or Assad or Mubarak to wonder which is the lesser evil for the people who live in such countries. More Syrian people flee the country since the US miltary strike is hanging over their heads - we need a peaceful solution, there is no other hope. There must be a dialogue with Russia and mainly Iran to find a solution for the region, the hostile "we do not talk to xyz and rather flatten the next country" simply has to stop. |
| thomasquinn 32989 09.09.2013 04:20 |
Goddammit! I posted a very long reply, and none of it shows up in my post! What the hell is wrong here? |
| brENsKi 09.09.2013 11:14 |
the only thing that matters in all of this is that while the world does it's f**king "Okey-Cokey" (in out, in out, we shake it all about) Assad and the rebels continue to take innocent lives on BOTH sides. Doesn't matter now whether USA/France (aka la relation spéciale) do something sooner or later...the dithering and pondering has cost lives. and...it doesn't matter what people think about who intervenes, if you slaughter, gas, wipe out your own people then you have forgone your right to dialogue or a fair trial. hit the c*nt on the head with a brick...NOW!!! |
| The Real Wizard 09.09.2013 15:28 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Goddammit! I posted a very long reply, and none of it shows up in my post! What the hell is wrong here?Whenever that happens, just click the back button in your browser, copy/paste your post, edit the post and paste it back in. It's just a forum bug. Sometimes posts don't actually post. |
| thomasquinn 32989 10.09.2013 01:12 |
The Real Wizard wrote:I tried that, but for some reason I got the "browser needs to resend information" dialog, and a blank post reply screen. I've probably got something in my browser settings wrong. Oh well, I'll have to re-write the thing later today.thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Goddammit! I posted a very long reply, and none of it shows up in my post! What the hell is wrong here?Whenever that happens, just click the back button in your browser, copy/paste your post, edit the post and paste it back in. It's just a forum bug. Sometimes posts don't actually post. Bottom line: I do think Assad is behind the gas attack, I'll explain the reasoning later, I don't think military intervention will achieve much except taking out the heaviest weaponry, but with the latest information available, it seems like the threat of military intervention did result in the first serious steps towards disarmament, which is probably the biggest victory possible (no tomahawks fired, but a fair chance that at least the bulk of the chemical weapons will be destroyed without extra casualties). |
| The Real Wizard 13.09.2013 10:16 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I tried that, but for some reason I got the "browser needs to resend information" dialog, and a blank post reply screen. I've probably got something in my browser settings wrong. Oh well, I'll have to re-write the thing later today.Not sure which browser you're using, but in Firefox it works just fine. |