Reply With Quote
I understand there are trivial rules. For the dead civilian(s), it's death.
What's the cop-out? I'm not playing it down, it's indeed a ty situation. Personally, I happen to be a person that lived under a dictatorship during early childhood, and I'm also an immigrant, so I know first hand both situations and there's nothing easy about them. But ultimately what you do during potential life or death situations is up to you, what you think it's better for your family, etc.
Some places are over, some places are still ongoing. Argentina and Chile settled down, but Egypt erupted again. Iraq was fairly calm for a long time until they decided to invade Kuwait, and then the hit the fan there. That's the cycles I'm talking about. Back in the 70's, early 80's, south america was a center for military juntas and rebels. That mostly went away in the 90's, but then around that time, the Balkans started with their own . The entire premise is that these peaks of internal struggle are pretty common, and they're not going away.
I disagree that a dead civilian by X weapon is any different than a dead civilian killed by Y weapon. It's a dead civilian, and it sucks no matter how that person meets his fate.
I'm also a firm believer there's much more than meets the eye in a lot of these struggles. If it would be such a David vs Goliath struggle, it probably would've been over a long time ago.
And as I told snc before, this isn't as much as having "balls" or a "moral high ground", etc... back in the 90's when Bush Sr went to Iraq, or Clinton's support against Milosevic, and you could even argue when Bush Jr went to Iraq again, we had generally a thriving economy. Right now that kind of cash would be much better spent in things like infrastructure projects (that we need) and would put more Americans to work.
I understand there are trivial rules. For the dead civilian(s), it's death.
Yeah but Obama called it a red line.
Now we gotta back it up or Putin will call him out for an MMA bout. Word and pride.
Putin isn't a Nobel Peace prize winner though.
About that nerve gas claim from back in January . Variations of these stories are in basically every newspaper on earth
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-assads-regi/
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../11/2003566872
Last edited by angrydude; 08-27-2013 at 11:45 PM.
Why does America have to "liberate" Syria? Why does America have to fix that ty country? Why not fix America first? It's a little ty here.
So NSA intercepted a proof that will start a war and take focus away from their scandal? How very convenient.
Does Obama Know He's Fighting on Al-Qa'ida's Side?
Posted GMT 8-27-2013 20:53:44
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured -- for the very first time in history -- that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa'ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted "All for one and one for all" each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if -- or when -- the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House -- nor, I suppose, by al-Qa'ida -- though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa'ida's affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.
Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa'ida for intelligence help -- after all, this is the group with "boots on the ground", something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa'ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa'ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.
There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa'ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan -- along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians -- they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa'ida's enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa'ida or the Nusra front.
And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa'ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps -- since there is no ins utional memory left among modern governments -- Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick.
In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it's war by YouTube. This doesn't mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members -- fighting alongside government troops in Damascus -- were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?
And while we're talking about ins utional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can't remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile -- Russian made, naturally -- and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about "ending the cycle of violence". Another American plane -- this time an A-7 -- was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.
Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That's what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect -- if Obama does go ahead -- that this one will run and run.
By Robert Fisk
http://www.aina.org/news/20130827155344.htm
that would be an act of war. cordon off with what?
on NPR this morning:
WH is saying bombing Assad was only to send a msg that chemical warfare anyehere wouldn't go unpunished (USA: "The Punisher"), was not to bring Assad down, and was not endorsement of the opposition.
Russians in the Syrian govt offices and "on the ground" saying they know for sure the Syrian govt didn't do the sarin attack.
USA is gonna look really stupid if it bombs Syria and later, or sooner, it comes out it was the opposition that made the sarin attack to bring in foreign intervention, sarin being relatively easy to handle, obtain.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-28-2013 at 09:08 AM.
It was probably a very difficult decision for you and your family. However you had America and other countries who were taking refugees. Most muslims don't meet our standards for political asylum. Or they are in an area where they might be considered a terrorist.
Most of those conflicts were from the cold war. Which gave incentive for both sides to aide them and you.Some places are over, some places are still ongoing. Argentina and Chile settled down, but Egypt erupted again. Iraq was fairly calm for a long time until they decided to invade Kuwait, and then the hit the fan there. That's the cycles I'm talking about. Back in the 70's, early 80's, south america was a center for military juntas and rebels. That mostly went away in the 90's, but then around that time, the Balkans started with their own . The entire premise is that these peaks of internal struggle are pretty common, and they're not going away.
You disagree. but most countries have agreed that it is unacceptable. we should not allow a dictator to kill entire villages, cities, etc. Civil war/unrest should have rules. I'm not saying realistically trying to 'rid the world of evil'. but helping any group having a democratically elected govt. should be our policy. Not at any costs.I disagree that a dead civilian by X weapon is any different than a dead civilian killed by Y weapon. It's a dead civilian, and it sucks no matter how that person meets his fate.
I'm also a firm believer there's much more than meets the eye in a lot of these struggles. If it would be such a David vs Goliath struggle, it probably would've been over a long time ago.
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I'm pretty sure that the US has signed but not ratified the Protocol I agreement which regulates this type of case. Point being, while I agree absolutely that its not the same to send soldiers with guns to quash an uprising as to bomb them or worse still gas them, the standards are not exactly rock solid. For ex, I'm sure people in the balkans are and Iraq (as well as many vets who fought there) are asking themselves why depleted uranium isnt considered a chemical/biological weapon for its lasting area effects; several countries consider them to be but most of the big players dont (coincidentally, the ones that have and use DU).
Nono, I already agree that from an economic standpoint, US has no business there, and even from a moral one as well. That doesnt mean the world shouldn't condemn / impose sanctions on the use of chemical weapons when it clearly carries much higher risks and kills more indiscriminately than conventional types of weapons (I could care less about the "humane" part of which is more painful, the point is that gas/poison is much more difficult to contain/direct). If the UN were offering to send peace keepers to verify the reality of whats going on I would support that. bombing a country thats in the middle of a civil war is totally counterproductive, in fact I liked it much more when the US would send soldiers to a country and deal with the situation directly instead of just bombing the out of everything which is the current trend.
McCain scolds White House for 'crazy' leaks on Syria air strikes
By Lara Seligman - 08/28/13 09:18 AM ET
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday expressed outrage over leaks related to possible air strikes on Syria, calling them “crazy.”
McCain pointed to reports that say U.S. air strikes on Syria could begin as early as Friday.
The Republican senator, who has long called for more aggressive U.S. action against Syria, said the leaks are tipping the U.S. hand.
“But all of these leaks, when strikes are going to take place, where, what’s going to be used, if I were Bashar Assad, I think I would declare tomorrow a snow day and keep everything from work,” McCain said on Fox News. “This is crazy. These leaks are just crazy.”
McCain reiterated his long-standing criticism of President Obama’s Syrian policy, saying Assad was encouraged to do more chemical attacks when the U.S. failed to punish him for initial attacks.
He also said Obama’s policies have been inconsistent in that the goal of pending attacks would not be regime change even though Obama has said he wants Assad out of power.
“This is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office and so where is America’s credibility? Where is our ability to influence events in the region?” McCain said on “Fox and Friends.” “What is the president’s policy?”
The White House said Tuesday that Obama is not seeking “regime change” in Syria, instead weighing a response to the violation of “an international standard” barring the use of chemical weapons.
McCain also slammed Obama’s policy toward Syria on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“Isn’t it contradictory that [Obama] said [Assad[ must go and now he is saying this isn’t aimed at regime change?” McCain said on Wednesday. “And if it isn’t aimed at regime change what is it named at?”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...y-toward-syria
"Cordon off" as in ensuring it doesn't spill on neighboring countries. If it does, you go in.
Just to make clear, I didn't emigrate as a refugee, nor moved my family with me. I was merely pointing out that living under a dictatorship isn't a breeze, and emigrating isn't either. My situation was different though. I grew up during the dictatorship days (until I was about 10, when democracy made a comeback), then I emigrated much later, for a different reason (job offer).
I would agree with that for Eastern Europe countries. Secessionist movements like IRA or ETA predate the Cold War. Same with military juntas in south america.
Then you're playing referee again, with something that's completely internal to a country.
What if they don't want to have a democratically elected government at this time? You have the wisdom of many years of democracy, but they don't. It's a process they're going to have to go through on their terms, and it will include spilled blood. Forcing it upon them isn't a solution.
I'm not against condemning actions. The first thing I said was "The civilian casualties are terrible", and they are.
Shup, terrorist.
TB
GIEDY
The lessons of WW I established the suffering part of gas felt by soildiers, not many innocent civilians were in the trenches. WW II saw very restricted use because of the memories of WWI. So while you could not care less, the rest of the world does. And the fact that one cannot control exactly where it goes is also significant. Seems people do care about the way humans die, silly or not.
Obama aiding Al Qaeda? Oh yea..I remember bringing that up a few times in this forum...heard nothing but crickets back then, tbh
rofl
so doesn't this prove it was not ordered by Assad, but a mistake or inside job to incite West response?
you know like when a US pilot dropped a 2 ton bomb in that Iraqi children's hospital?
Syria asks UN to immediately investigate three new ‘chemical attacks’ by rebels
http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/
The Syrian government is demanding that the United Nations immediately investigate three alleged chemical attacks carried out by rebel groups on the outskirts of Damascus last week, Syria’s envoy to the UN said.
Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.
The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Bashar Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army, the diplomat said.
truth bomb:
Bombing Syria would make US pilots ‘Al-Qaeda's air force’ – Kucinich
Twenty-one Republicans and one Democrat have signed onto a House letter to President Obama demanding that any military action must be signed off on by Congress.
“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Cons ution,” says the letter, which was initiated by Republican Congressman Scott Rigell.
“Before engaging in a military strike against Assad’s forces, the United States must understand that this action will likely draw us into a much wider and much longer-term conflict that could mean an even greater loss of life within Syria,” said Senator Chris Murphy, urging the Obama administration to “continue to exercise restraint, because absent an imminent threat to America’s national security, the U.S. should not take military action without Congressional authorization.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
