Things are getting serious in Syria

bagelriffic said:
What is so important in syria that the west would be willing to risk conflict if not war with russia or china?

Im not deflecting the moral dilemma but ive heard a lot of talk about western interest without it being defined much.

If US does attack whats reasonably worth that risk?
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding naive, what is at stake is the rights of average human beings not to be gassed to death. (never mind their right not to be bombed, shelled, shot, stabbed, strangled or otherwise killed)
 
ThisIsWhoIAm said:
That means you don't give a shit about this forum. All you care about is how strong you look to the 15 year olds that come by every now and then.
Click to expand...

Interesting, considering that I volunteer my limited free time to act as an admin to this site and put up with crap like this on a regular basis. It's absolutely worth it, though, when those few out there actually express their appreciation. There are a lot of good people here and it is a shame that they have to deal with this kind of negativity.
 
““What is most shocking about America’s reaction to Turkey’s killing of Armenians, the Holocaust, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, Iraq’s slaughter of the Kurds, Bosnian Serbs' mass murder of Muslims, and the Hutu elimination of Tutsi is not that the United States refused to deploy U.S. ground forces to combat the atrocities...
For much of the century, even the most ardent interventionists did not lobby for U.S. ground invasions. What is most shocking is that U.S. policy makers did almost nothing to deter the crime. Because America’s ‘vital national interests’ were not considered imperiled by mere genocide, senior U.S. officials did not give genocide the moral attention it warranted.”
Click to expand...
Samantha Power
 
Stu said:
Samantha Power
Click to expand...


America just can't win, can it?

Personally, I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that the US would prioritize their interventions based on their personal interests... I mean, there's a lot of shit going on in the world right now and it's impossible to fix it all. I don't think the US is behind it all like some people seem to, but it's pretty unrealistic to assume that any action they take is entirely exploitative or entirely selfless... it's probably more like a mix.

But yeah, as far as the US is concerned it's usually either stand by and be accused of supporting oppressive regimes, or interfere and be accused of imperialism... it's a pretty shitty job being the world's dark knight.
 
Last edited:
Gul Dukat said:
America just can't win, can it?

Personally, I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that the US would prioritize their interventions based on their personal interests... I mean, there's a lot of shit going on in the world right now and it's impossible to fix it all. I don't think the US is behind it all like some people seem to, but it's pretty unrealistic to assume that any action they take is entirely exploitative or entirely selfless... it's probably more like a mix.

But yeah, as far as the US is concerned it's usually either stand by and be accused of supporting oppressive regimes, or interfere and be accused of imperialism... it's a pretty shitty job being the world's dark knight.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I figure.

I have my doubts that the US would actually foment mass destruction like chemical bombs directly, but the CIA has been known in the past to take a look at rebel groups and try to ensure they can be more successful by manipulating things so that money or weapons go their way, as seen with the Contras in the Enterprise operation (part of Iran-Contra). Arming the Contras was made illegal due to their massive violations of human rights, but the Reagan administration secretly sent them weapons anyway.
 
I got this in my email this morning, you need to skip the first 2 mins as they set up.
[video=youtube;7oGbKr6IxZs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGbKr6IxZs#t=2m45s[/video]
 
Today's brief analysis from the mind of just me: Tried killing 100,000 people and that didn't work. What if we were to gas a few people? Would that do it? Everyone is so concerned about their credibilities; what about their butts? They're not thinking about the war of attrition right now, are they. Expend their resources against Syria and what have we accomplished? More people will hate them, sure; but, that is not our real objective. Let's see how the cards are stacked. Maybe we can take a look at their hand when they lean over to send a few sorties into Syrian airspace. Objectives: weaken their hand in the long run to face Iran and their allies. Draw them into a ME conflict that cannot be tilted either way with air strikes alone. Hopefully America will have so much pride they will not look into these things too deeply..............................................What would the easiest way to solve this crisis be? Have Assad turn over his CBWs to Russia so they can be properly disposed of. Does Assad need these weapons? No, not with Putin standing in his corner. Can Russia be trusted to destroy these weapons? Yes, with specific people looking on at all times. More of just me's take on real time Syria later.
 
@muir already probably mentioned the conspiracy angle, didn't he? I didn't actually read through all 8 pages of the thread, but I was sure that would come up, right?

I wonder what the US/Western government's responsibility really is for the events there. We saw chemical weapons attack footage, but no one can really claim responsibility for it. One side says the other is responsible and I think as a whole, we US citizens have been led to believe Syria is full of liars and tyrants. Meanwhile, many of the rebel groups in Syria could be more accurately described as "terrorist cells" that we'd see in just about any country and as terrorists, they are likely to resort to extreme measures like chemical weapons... or flying planes into buildings.

Syria has always been a missed opportunity in my opinion. We were all raised with the Cold War mentality that they were Communist allies; The USSR sided, supported and backed them in the Middle East. If you look at Syria though, it has all the things the US hates in a resource-rich location; a stable government, run by a competent (if not harsh) and well educated leadership. Most of all, they don't especially like us.

In reality, Syria has always been one of the most stable countries in the area. They were among the first to recognize Israel and they maintained peace with them for many of the past several decades. Their leadership has a Western education and their government is a secular one, not ruled by religion. People just like to assume Syria is one of those radical Muslim countries like Iran, but in reality, it's more appropriate to compare them with Russia.

Face it, we fuck with Middle Eastern governments, and all hell breaks loose about 2 decades later; we toppled the "natural" Iranian government when they express no interest in helping us in the 50's and extremists took over in the 70's-80's. We supply arms and support rebels/dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq and them accuse them of attacks against us about 10-20 years later.

I don't believe the events in Syria have not been influenced by us fucking with them, the same as we fucked with every other country there. We don't want a stable, competent government in a resource-rich region, posing a threat... that's bad for business. Topple them, install a puppet and then steal everything they have... that's our standard procedure for this situation.

Doesn't it seem suspicious to anyone else that neither side wants to claim responsibility for the chemical weapons attack and that footage is leaked out of the country as the US is trying to decide what to do? The rebellion started almost 2 years ago, why now? Why on the brink of us contemplating action, would there suddenly be a massive chemical weapons attack?
 
Because it was staged. I mean it happened, but for political reasoning. Obama and his gang are once again waiting for everyone else to get their pieces in place so they can further SCREW the US people. Guess we are all supposed to be stupid or something. Maybe too busy with our new toys.
 
Lerxst said:
.....The rebellion started almost 2 years ago, why now? Why on the brink of us contemplating action, would there suddenly be a massive chemical weapons attack?
Click to expand...
I don't think the US was contemplating overt action until the chemical attacks.

overall your post is a balanced and mainstream understanding of the events. One thing the news is publicizing is that the target of the attack were folks living in an area held by the non fundamentalist rebels (i have no idea how true that is but let's say it is). This would give significant motivation to the more al q types to have been the culprits.

The US general public is not buying into a bombing raid. So it really doesn't matter to them who launched the attack or why.

The chaos began when the Syrian Gov started killing its people.

Is it in the interest of the US to turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons again? Let's not forget that the Reagan Administration had no problem with Saddam's Iraq gassing the Iranian military in the eighties.
 
I hardly think the American public has but a seat in this ballgame.
 
Gul Dukat said:
America just can't win, can it?

Personally, I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that the US would prioritize their interventions based on their personal interests... I mean, there's a lot of shit going on in the world right now and it's impossible to fix it all. I don't think the US is behind it all like some people seem to, but it's pretty unrealistic to assume that any action they take is entirely exploitative or entirely selfless... it's probably more like a mix.

But yeah, as far as the US is concerned it's usually either stand by and be accused of supporting oppressive regimes, or interfere and be accused of imperialism... it's a pretty shitty job being the world's dark knight.
Click to expand...
Is winning what we are after, though? After all, we want to see a certain balance in the world. Break out the big guns when the scales are being tipped too far to one side or the other. We need a little map:

http://www.geostrategicforecasting.com/the-syrian-revolt-dimensions-and-perspectives/
 
Last edited:
We are not trying to "win" a war. We do not wish to fight in a war that is clearly not ours to fight. We do owe it to the people of the region to try and help them attain a life means for their families, without too much foreign intervention trying to control their government and others in the region, as an answer to their stance against the current regime. There is a lot of Iranian and Lebanese involvement in Syria Iran sees as important to their military and strategic goals in the region. The people are simply tired of this. Other larger countries may come to help hold this military presence there, but it may very well topple in their laps as the Syrian people try to turn their own country away from the brink of destruction. As for America? With great strengths comes great responsibilities. I pray they use them wisely.
 
copied "The author and political analyst Dr. Ismail Salami further explained in his article from Saturday that “Obama had better think twice before harkening to any call for war coming from the Zionists. The list of his crimes is getting thicker and thicker every day and the Zionist rope he is holding onto is a rotten one indeed.”
Afterwards, the Iranian academic called US President Obama a slave of his Zionist masters “who deem no barrier in inflicting human losses and plunging the entire region into an eternally irreversible crisis.”

I cannot help but keep reading all the insolence passed around the world by so many armchair warriors dug in on their imaginary beaches underneath skies lit with bombs of their imaginations. They seek mighty words coming from leaders of the world to bolster their fortifications, not knowing what lies on the other side of the shores. Displaced families hide in refugee camps, foreign volunteers are called mercenaries, contemptuous fighters from contemptuous armed groups have come from the world over to try and tip the odds in their own favors for their own personal agendas, a ruler has decided to kill tens of thousands of people rather than give in to them and he is called a murderer, people on the internet have tried to rally anything they can muster to topple another regime at any cost, Hezbollah has come to Assad's aid with Iranian backing to help keep in place Iran's military network in the area, Russia has stepped in to sell more weapons to deter America from attacking, and the beachfront is growing more and more populated.

Is there an axiomatic ideology waiting in the ranks and files with all the answers to fix a new Syrian government within a year? After all, if the people have their way will they not expect a miracle quickly executed? What about two years?


What is Obama's main reason for going into the arena with military force? CBWs? Are there those offering to pay for his intervention? If so, what do they have to gain? Will the fruits that grow next year even be edible? Who can say? Why, oh why, has he waited so long to "help" with his resources? How many lives will be lost if he steps in? Mostly, why is Putin taking his current stance? Why does he sit and watch as this unfolds? There are prudent answers to most of today's problems; why not seek them? I hope the world is ready for the repercussions of this conflict, but they are not. If dealing prudently with the situation includes airstrikes and other outside intervention, then let the world admit it and get along with it. I would not want to be a world leader who chose a directive because of anything else but reality and truth in these times.
 
sept 4 2013 Foreign Policy magazine.
...paralyzed by these fears, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and AIPAC supporters in Washington remained nearly silent for weeks, even after evidence of Bashar al-Assad's murderous chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians outside Damascus. And they remained quiet even after Obama indicated that he was preparing a military strike. They did not want to be drawn into a political melee in a deeply divided Congress, risking strains in the bipartisan support for Israel that forms the bedrock of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

All that has now changed. Responding to a full-court press by the Obama administration -- a call to Netanyahu, a direct message to AIPAC, and messages via congressional leaders -- AIPAC has weighed in fully in support of the president's call for intervention....
Click to expand...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/04/pushed_on_the_bandwagon_aipac_obama_syria_israel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top