Syria

[HeyYou]

I think if you ran a poll, 90% or better of the american people would NOT support arming ANYONE in Syria, or providing military aid of any sort. (even non-lethal aid) We have had enough of foreign wars. But, it seems our government, ever looking for the next profit center for the military-industrial complex, LOVE to stick their fingers into various rebellions/uprisings/whathaveyou. In Syria, they want to support the islamists.... we see how well that worked out in Egypt..... What's even funnier is..... Iraq is now sending soldiers/supplies/etc to Assad...... and guess where most of that stuff comes from? If you guessed "The United States", you win a gold star. Seems we are now, albeit somewhat indirectly, supporting BOTH sides in this war. The M-I C has GOT to be laughing up their sleeves on this one. All those nice contracts with Iraq, all the nice contracts with the fed for the Syrian opposition... they are rolling in money. And whose money is it really? The american taxpayer.....

 

I think it is PAST time for an "American Spring".

[rizon72]

I know I'm not for supporting any side, or giving them money or arms. Personally, let them fight it out, let a clear winner come forth, and deal with that group.

[Murietta]

rizon72, I ain't think there may be a .... clear war in Syria. It's just imposible since there're too many sides who interested to run thing as the like. For example, state "A" wanna islamic forces take control of Syria, state "B" wanna strengthenin' of European capital in the edge, state 'C" got its own ideas 'bout Syria's future. So, there're lots of ways 'n the war is goin' on.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Murietta

[sukeban]

So it's been almost two years now without a random, unprovoked attack on a Middle Eastern country, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that we're about to launch another one in order to keep from breaking this arbitrary and self-imposed schedule.

 

To whit, we're about to attack Syria using the exact same argument that we used against Iraq in 2003, namely, that "our gut" tells us that they've used/possessed chemical weapons, but that, unfortunately, we just can't quite seem to come up with any actual evidence in order to prove this claim (I mean, International Law is practically Roman Law--guilty until proven innocent, amirite?). But truly, the irony is THICK with this, as you have some of George Bush's fiercest critics (Obama chief among them) literally copy-pasting his rhetoric (Kerry actually said "Willing Coalition!") and "argument" (secret evidence... just trust us alright?) in order to shoe-horn a military action that they've coveted for some time into a pretext that is, at best, absolutely paper thin.

 

Consider:

 

A) UN weapons inspectors were alerady in-country, why would al-Assad choose precisely THIS time as the moment for a chemical strike?

B) Why would al-Assad take this immense gamble when he had already long since captured the momentum of the war?

C) If the attack was ordered by the regime, why allow UN inspectors to the site at all, as they did today?

 

Further:

 

A) In May the Iraqi government broke up an al-Qaeda cell that was attempting to manufacture and use sarin and mustard gas, and chlorine gas attacks have been a rather commonplace terror tactic in that country for years.

B) Al-Qaeda militants in Iraq are intimately linked with the dominant rebel faction in Syria (al-Nusra Front), with men and materiel regularly moving across their porous border.

 

Finally:

 

A) Why is the Obama Administration pre-emptively "moving the goalposts" when it comes to the UN inspectors determining the guilt or innocence of the Syrian regime?

B) If the chemical attack was so self-evidently committed by the regime, why would John Kerry state that it is already "too late" for the UN inspectors to render a verdict on the matter, especially when the "too late" claim is contradicted by many other experts in the field?

C) If the UN inspectors are so unreliable, why won't the Obama Administration share their "secert evidence" with the American people and press?

 

Conclusion:

 

We all know how this story goes and we all know how it will end, as we have *wait for it* seen it several times before. The US, with some rag-tag "coalition" of France (wants that Mandate back!), UK, Turkey, Gulf States, and a small cadre of utterly insignificant developing nations looking to curry favor with the US will co-sign on the missile launch, flouting American public opinion, European public opinion, and world opinion--and highly likely in contravention of international law. Russia and China will talk some bluster but won't actually do anything, as will Syria and Iran (and maybe Zimbabwe keke). The strikes will take out some runways and damage military communication, but will otherwise prove to be inneffectual, begging the question "What was the point of this, again?" In the meantime, the Defense Department will place some orders with Raytheon or General Dynamics or whatever to replenish some of their supply of Tomahawks, signifying the only true "winner" of the affair.

 

'MURICA!

http://www.e-celebrities.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FlagEagle.jpg

Edited August 27, 2013 by sukeban

[Vagrant0]

The more and more I look at things like this, the more and more it seems like the US and allies (call it whatever you want) is less concerned about innocence, and more concerned in simply trying to bring countries back into the fold of Western ideals. This being a good or bad thing depends on perspective, but in many ways it feels like other conflicts based around unification. A larger government needs to try and weaken or eliminate any threats which might exist to undermine its efforts.

 

It's also nearing another election... So about the time we're announcing "Mission Accomplished" it'll be a good offset to the usual party bickering.

[JimboUK]

I'm struggling to get my head around any of this lunacy, how the hell is replacing a secular government with a bunch of raving jihadis in our best interest? No one buys the excuses Obama and chums are peddling, most of it flies in the face of common sense. Maybe the ultimate goal is provoke Iran into responding? I can't think of any other reason for this.

[HeyYou]

Trouble is, our government is no longer "of the people", and most certainly NOT "for the people". If it were, they wouldn't even be considering yet another military action in a middle eastern country. The two previous ones have accomplished all of nothing, aside from giving al-queda a couple really huge training grounds, with live americans to shoot at, and one of the best recruiting tools they could have ever wished for.

 

Bascially, I see this as the defense (*cough*) industry looking for another profit center. We are pretty much out of Iraq, and Afghanistan is winding down. We aren't using up near the ordinance we were at one time...... need to keep that ball rolling.

 

Syria has NEVER been 'in the fold' to begin with. Syria has hated the US for decades. Nothing is going to change, regardless of which side prevails. Assad simply doesn't like us. The muslim brotherhood/al-queda think we are the great satan. They don't seem to have an issue taking our money and such though....

 

Not to mention that in all reality, we are supporting BOTH sides in the war. We are giving aid directly to the rebels, and, we are giving aid indirectly to the assad regime, via Iraq, whom have come down on assad's side, and are supporting him. (with money/equipment they got from US.) Nice huh? The folks in the military industrial complex are wringing thier hands in anticipation of huge profits once the shooting starts.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the US government is terminally stupid. Or Insane. Perhaps both. I hope Ron Paul runs for president again. I will vote for him. What is really, truly scary is, his is the only voice of reason on topics of this nature. STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT.

[ginnyfizz]

I find myself very much in agreement with the last three posters. Camoron has recalled the UK Parliament and is putting a resolution to the UN Security Council. I do hope they tell him to go away in no uncertain terms. I think we have the old, old story of politicians who are beleaguered at home trying to start trouble abroad in order to distract attention from problems at home. Not to mention the old, old story of them never learning a thing from past mistakes. Camoron thinks of himself as the heir to Blair, is Obama the heir to Dangerous Dubya?

 

*Leaps on mobility scooter and heads off at top speed, trailer of food and water in tow, to a nice deep former limestone mine of my acquaintance, in anticipation of WW3....*

[Hardwaremaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

 

 

Well, this is looking mighty similar, to something else. I also believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that Israel has been claiming all their neighbors have had, or is developing WMDs for around thirty years. People are busy and tend to have short term memory's forgetting this. This. This. This. And this. Which leaves me scratching my head at this masquerade of bureaucracy. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy017.gif

 

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." -Eric Arthur Blair.

 

"One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order to establish a dictatorship." -Eric Arthur Blair.

 

"The true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public opinion in the direction the manipulator desires." -Eric Arthur Blair.

 

As of right now the media is talking about Milly Cyrus as front page news, totally ignoring the progressive situation that is unfolding. At the time of this post: I think if you look at the headlines of all the Mainstream Media websites you will find no mention of this whatsoever. With war possibly around the corner its strange to say the least.

 

These articles maybe of some interest to people, depending on your current beliefs and knowledge. With all this in mind, tell me what you guys see, and what you guys think is going on. Until then I will catch you guys later. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy011.gif

 

 

 

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-propaganda.htm

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/high-level-american-officials-admit-that-the-united-states-uses-false-flag-terror-and-warn-of-future-attacks.html

 

 

Edited August 28, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[sukeban]

I'm pretty sure that the American government is like a rogue state within a rogue state at this point, and, if we're to be honest about it, if this were any other country (or at least a country without nuclear weapons...) our leaders would rightfully be chilling in Milosevic's old cell in The Hague, right next Charles Taylor and the rest of the international warlords. But the International Criminal Court and, really, the entire body of International Law are only there to ensnare weak states, while larger powers invent ever more entertaining semantics and justifications for intervening, or, if even that fails, just make like the Iraq War and ignore it completely, daring any other power to do something about it.

 

It's self-evident that the decision to intervene in Syria had long since been made, but that, due to Western war fatigue, US/UK/France were biding their time in anticipation of a serviceable pretext. That none of these powers actually care about what the UN concludes about the attack (in fact, telling them to leave the country!) belies the fact that the actual event is irrelevant, that it is only significant as an opportunity to do what they wanted all along.

 

Also heavy with irony is Obama currently attempting to don the mantle of Martin Luther King, forgetting that the actual MLK was staunchy anti-war and a pacifist while the Obama Administration continues the warmongering and militarism that has come to define modern America. Somewhere, far away... the actual MLK is face-palming mightily.