Syria

[dudutz18]

The folks that want the war are the politicians. Like Herbert Hoover said, “Older men declare war. But it is youth [and the poor] that must fight and die.” We should send the politicians to their own war instead of everyone else.

 

Meanwhile in downunder Australia. Our PM is not only exaggerating our role but also advocating intervention but not yet defined what sort. Probably some drone attacks.. A media also mentioned in a press that "No Aussie will be sent to Syria." I watched the video (Now expired) like 4 times and I didn't even hear the PM saying that directly or indirectly. If I remember correctly this is the exact repeat of Aussies' intervention in Iraq/Afghanistan. Our PM's telling us it's the Syrian regime that used the chemical weapon. Evidence? Too secret brah! Just follow the way of the oils and strategic annexation security councils. We got a coming election (You may think we have a 'king of the hill - free for all pvp' style of politics but no) though and that has pretty much distracted us from this matter which has been brought to discussion but not sustained.

 

I'm personally against military intervention in Syria, same reasons as youse. Maybe those politicians want to learn geography and economics but this isn't how - stolen from Mark Twain's. Money could be better spent combating the already high-and-rising domestic poverty in youths, mental health care, and REAL education.

[Hardwaremaster]

I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, merely to see other peoples reaction and points. I haven't commented however, because everyone else has pretty much stated my thoughts. With most of the other countries already having removed their support, the chance of anything coming form this seems improbable. Here in the continental United States, the Mainstream Media fundamentally redacted their sentiments, and concorantly, those of the politicians that were advocating interference, switching the conversation back towards the perpetual Civilian and Citizen Weapon Argument. Which I refuse to participate in because it is a redundant public controversy. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky050.gif

 

Hopefully the situation will resolve itself with out intervention, most countries currently can't afford the economic and military cost of waging another war of attrition in a nation that's thousands of miles away. With that being said though, I feel its only a matter of time before something causes the situation to collapse, as we are already walking a sensitive international border here, that is being agitated by multiple factors, notwithstanding the constant bureaucratic and political meddling, from other people, businesses, nations and factions. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-talk013.gif

 

Also while I'm here does anyone know, how legitimate the following information is, given current developments. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen017.gif

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/saudi-arabia-missiles-syria-rebels_n_3453140.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html

 

 

Edited September 2, 2013 by Hardwaremaster

[Harbringe]

Maybe these guys are the ones using the Chemical weapons.

 

 

 

The first video is pretty much self explanatory , the second shows a bunch of men with chemical burns to their hands and faces , indicating some kind of accident ( Chemical explosion) during the mixing phase . Now some may say this could be Assad's soldiers , but with a little knowledge and observation it becomes clear who these people are. !) The Syrian Chemical Weapons Division is run by Assad's younger brother , they are an elite unit within the Syrian Army , that goes through rigorous training in the use of chemical weapons so its unlikely that there would be a whole roomful of them with chemical burns . 2) As elite troops being led by Assad's brother they can expect and would receive the the best of care , yet the room they are in is a bit dirty , somewhat disarrayed ,and one of the beds has a pillow on it that is not a standard issue hospital pillow . 3) At 144 secs you get a clear view of an individual tending to one of the men , doctors and medics working for Assad and on his brothers elite troops do not do their work wearing a t shirt and Adidas gym pants , they would be wearing hospital gowns. Obviously this is some insurgent held clinic or hospital and those are FSA insurgents or Al Nusra terrorists who had themselves an oopsie.

 

Not enough ok here's some one who has compiled a pretty good case of who is actually using chemical weapons.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

 

And if that ain't enough just google "Carla Del Ponte chemical" and hear what she has to say.

 

Here's the thing we had John Kerry tell us that he was gonna present the evidence that Assad had used chemical weapons and instead we got no evidence and a whole series of you know we know , you know statements. Yet over the last year , people , just normal people have been posting much better evidence on social media sites like facebook , twitter , youtube , etc that its the insurgent/terrorists (sorry freedom fighter) that are the ones who have been using chemical weapons.No wonder they have been trying to pass so many SOPA like laws to control the internet.

 

For many who bother to take the time to read through this it should dawn upon you that our governments in the west have not been telling us the truth as to what has been going on over there and the fact that for many of you this would be the first time you have seen any of this , tells you that those who should be reporting on this (Mainstream Media) are in collusion with the government. Just like they were in the lead up to Iraq.And why not after all 4 out of the 5 mainstream news in America are owned outright or have major stakeholders like Raytheon or McDonnell Douglas or GE , defence contractors.

 

We are so screwed.

[Harbringe]

I've been keeping a close eye on this thread, merely to see other peoples reaction and points. I haven't commented however, because everyone else has pretty much stated my thoughts. With most of the other countries already having removed their support, the chance of anything coming form this seems improbable. Here in the continental United States, the Mainstream Media fundamentally redacted their sentiments, and concorantly, those of the politicians that were advocating interference, switching the conversation back towards the perpetual Civilian and Citizen Weapon Argument. Which I refuse to participate in because it is a redundant public controversy. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky050.gif

 

Hopefully the situation will resolve itself with out intervention, most countries currently can't afford the economic and military cost of waging another war of attrition in a nation that's thousands of miles away. With that being said though, I feel its only a matter of time before something causes the situation to collapse, as we are already walking a sensitive international border here, that is being agitated by multiple factors, notwithstanding the constant bureaucratic and political meddling, from other people, businesses, nations and factions. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-talk013.gif

 

Also while I'm here does anyone know, how legitimate the following information is, given current developments. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen017.gif

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/17/saudi-arabia-missiles-syria-rebels_n_3453140.html

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-what-the-west-has-given-syrias-rebels-8756447.html

 

 

 

The first and last are likely very reliable , the middle one is 50/50 , its needs confirmation from this Dale Gavlak (who is a very reliable source) that she actually filed this story. Even that doesn't make it true unless its confirmed further.

[rizon72]

I scratch my head over this one. I am not seeing the positive of a military strike. Perhaps someone might be able to explain it to me, cause I'm not seeing it. How will a military strike prevent these weapons from being used again? What is the mission? Short-term? Long-term?

[HeyYou]

Well, see, that's just the problem..... Hitting areas where these weapons are stored, to 'prevent their use', is just as likely to cause civilian casualties as the various folks over there actually using them intentionally. It's more like "Don't do that, or I will hurt you!", or "My army is better than your army." Or some such nonsense of that nature.

[JimboUK]

I scratch my head over this one. I am not seeing the positive of a military strike. Perhaps someone might be able to explain it to me, cause I'm not seeing it. How will a military strike prevent these weapons from being used again? What is the mission? Short-term? Long-term?

 

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldenJackass/1377892800.php This is an intereresting read, it's written by an obvious gold bug but there's some good points.

[sukeban]

Pretty sure that we are still going to attack. The resolution is a shoe-in in the hawkish Senate and the Administration will likely be able to whip a large majority of Democrats, coupled with perhaps ~50% Republican support, in the House. The only real source of opposition will probably be from the anti-war left and from libertarian-leaning Republicans, perhaps amounting to ~120 or so votes. The other "problem" with this going to a vote is that it builds up expectations for the attack mightily. Whereas before, the attack might have been closer to a token volley of cruise missiles, this prelude period increases the odds of a multi-day "shock and awe" sort of campaign, potentially weakening al-Assad much more than it would have otherwise (which, IMO, isn't desirable).

 

The entire debate in Washington misses the point though, which is that, much like the egg in the fairy tale, the Syrian state cannot be put together again after so much life has been lost. Syria MUST go the way of Yugoslavia and dissolve, as no amount of federalism is going to restore the broken trust between the various religious and ethnic communities of that beleaguered nation. The current state borders and "constructed states" of the Middle East are, by and large, anachronisms, established arbitrarily by the West after the First World War. They need to be redrawn, as they were in Eastern Europe--though again, only after much violence and bloodshed. Arab Nationalism and despotism used to be strong enough to hold these nations together, but, as should be obvious, that is no longer the case.

 

Additionally, the preeminent conflict in the Middle East is no longer the "classic" Arab versus Israel affair, but is instead a "throwback" to 661, a Sunni versus Shia religious cold war, or, put another way, "Iran versus the Gulf States." The West has the unpleasant position of having long-ago sided with the Gulf States, nevermind that it is precisely these nations who are responsible for carrying out and financing the enormous bulk of the world's terrorism, including, of course, 9/11, the London subway attack, Madrid, etc. I would argue that we a) have no business taking a side in that fight, but b) if we do, then we are currently on the wrong side.

Edited September 3, 2013 by sukeban

[JimboUK]

I get the feeling they're setting things up for a ground war, any WMDs that Assad has will fall into the hands of Al Qaeda if Assad falls, Kerry wants to option to go in if that should happen...

 

http://therightscoop.com/kerry-if-syria-implodes-we-might-need-to-put-buts-on-the-ground/ (note the body languge when he says they don't intend to go in on the ground.)

 

Those weapons won't just vanish, they will fall into the hands of Al-Nusra and the U.S will have to go in or these chemicals will find their way into western cities.

[sukeban]

@Jim

 

Absolutely, the language of the resolution is intentionally vague and open-ended, allowing Obama to do whatever he wants (no prohibition whatsoever on ground troops) once it is approved.

 

.....

 

More broadly, Obama has also really thrown his party under the bus with this decision, in a way that could really damage their electoral prospects both in the next election and in a more existential sense. Just as the failure and corruption of the Bush presidency played a pivotal role in spinning off the the Tea Party from establishment Republicans, I think that Obama's unpopular, reckless behavior has the potential to do the same thing with liberal Democrats as well. This vote (and the NSA votes before it) will create some awkward townhall meetings for many Democrats, and I would hope that principled Democratic voters would not forget their transgressions come the primaries and/or general election.

 

I also just love the slanted coverage of this issue in the media, always asking inane questions like "Why is Russia so confrontational" when it is clear as day that it is the US consistently in the position of disrupting the geopolitical equilibrium and sniping off Russia's (few) traditional allies. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Washington just smile and acquiesce as Russia (or China) toppled the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Japan, Mexico, etc. using unilateral action and dubious, self-interested justifications? Somehow I didn't think so.