|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 14, 2013 03:50 AM |
|
|
Getting involved in Syria is a big mistake. And I'm not sure why chemical weapons is some magic line in the sand. The reports are that maybe a hundred people are so were killed with sarin gas. That's somehow worse than how many tens of thousands killed with gas propelled projectiles - aka bullets? I don't really get it.
Anyway - nobody in Syria likes us. So why the hell give them any help at all? What interests do we have there?
Oh wait... could this have anything to do with the Obama Administration trying to find a way to deflect attention from the three trillion scandals it's managed to involve itself in?
Hmmm....
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 04:49 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:51, 14 Jun 2013.
|
Same was said when Clinton ordered some attack during the Monica Lewinsky scandal but I don't know... I can understand (imagine) governments going to war because of profit, national interest, resources etc etc and sugarcoating it by ideological masks. History is full of it. But going to war just for the sole purpose of distraction, as some kind of PR move, that seems a little off.
There are lots of journalists here analyzing (or conspiring) stuff about Middle East politics in Syria and pointing out conflict of interest between Russia, China and U.S. One thing the leftists always mention is the rebels were the first to attack and they are hard-core militants, so it's not like a one-sided thing on brutality like Saddam poisoning the Kurds.
One thing I know is, until a few years ago Esad was constantly being praised, everybody was talking about how he was not like his father and how democratic he was, when he visited Turkey in the early 2000's, Erdogan treated him like a guest of honor. Then, suddenly something changed and everywhere on the media, it was all about how he was a bloody tyrant and how he should be put down etc etc. Leftist papers here tend to interpret that as a directive from U.S. Since their theory is AKP's change of Syria policy is based on what they call U.S.-AKP alliance. I read those interpretations with caution though, because the Turkish left has an old pattern of linking everything to U.S. foreign politics no matter what. Not very objective every time.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 06:41 AM |
|
|
It can seem kind of pedantic, but there are certain weapons graded as unacceptable within treaties and generally speaking in U.N. history when you've got weaponized gases being used you've got better odds of milking a response out of them, and for good reason. The risk factor of collateral damage for a projectile - even artillery - is fairly well within the control of the users. When you whip out weaponized gas, **** can start turning into a scene out of BioShock. People start dangling off of chandeliers while their faces melt off, etc. It demonstrates an elevated ruthlessness in the war.
That being said, it really doesn't help answer how wise it would be to help either the regime or the contenders.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 03:22 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 15:30, 14 Jun 2013.
|
the sources I have say that it is part of a plan to ultimately weaken russia, though I've not dug enough to know exactly how...
basically a kind of continuation of the cold war, it seems. there is even a book about that, Grand chessboard from Brzezinski. (I haven't read it, but I've just found it's very easy to get a pdf of the book)
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 04:29 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:34, 14 Jun 2013.
|
I think Iran is a more likely target than Russia, from the turkish/saudi/israeli/american perspective. Russia does have it's military port in Tartus though. So if that can't survive, maybe they could move it to Cyprus.
but yeah, this is a real shame from the US. Especially so close to the peace conference:/
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 04:42 PM |
|
|
Just make a deal with Russia that they get a significant portion while other liberal European powers do whatever they want with the rest. (nuking is preferable)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 05:13 PM |
|
|
|
well, iran would be a part of the plan as well.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted June 14, 2013 07:16 PM |
|
|
The aim of geopolitical powers i the area is:
A:Russia keeps an "Ally" (Trading partner), Iran has a another friend and israel with a stronger Syria would not be able to do as it wants because of it having some advanced weapons.
B: Israel gets a weak enemy. That syria will remain an enemy of israel is without a doubt. But since the rebels are a bunch of morons and criminals, making them fight each other is easy. Sunnies vs Shias or Alawites vs "Insert here ethnic group".
In either A or B, they dont stand a chance against Israel but Israel in case A would have to be more careful.
|
|
seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted August 28, 2013 03:29 AM |
|
|
US intervention?
With all the news being about intervention because somebody or assad used chemical weapons. What is paradoxal is that many more people died from conventional weapons.
The arabs league is pro intwrvention as well, and so is britain. What the US is proposing is an air bombing mission plus cruise missile strikes.
The US should sit this one out. Let the arab league sort it out, then blame thw death toll on the Russians and chinese because of their UNSC vetoes.
Still though, I wonder what the fuss is all about. Surely,the west, china and russia dont care about the people, so what could be the implications?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2013 01:16 PM |
|
|
It's sad it had to come to this point. The international community is acting to late. There should have been a weapons embargo from the start. Let's hope Assad surrenders after the attack.
And then there will be a massive mess afterwards.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 02:36 AM |
|
|
|
We'll find out shortly whether or not Obama is going to even bother consulting Congress before approving military strikes.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 07:40 AM |
|
|
I don't get what the point of your constitution is if nobody follows it.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 08:36 AM |
|
|
Decoration? I don't know.
Seriously though, the checks & balances concerning military action has pretty much been chipped away to nothing. We're talking about intervening in a civil war where there are zero Americans involved and the president & staff are likely going to just make a decision irrelevant of congressional approval or disapproval. There's not even some rushed timeline either, where the commander-in-chief would be required to make a split second decision. They've had over a year to mull this out, and this is all being decided while major powers are divided on the issue. This wasn't such a big deal with Afghanistan or even Iraq because there wasn't much international dispute over it. Now you have Western powers versus Russia/China split over what ought to be done, and the decision is still likely being made without consulting the public's representative body.
In fairness, Congress could theoretically force an issue with it if they were heavily against it, but it's still irritating that the proper channels aren't being observed.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 08:42 AM |
|
|
I was under the impression that Congress approval is only needed for a "war", what defines a "war" is so open to interpretation that the president, as Commander in Chief can """""technically""""" do as he pleases.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 08:45 AM |
|
|
Yes. Legalistically speaking, the last nation the US was at war with was Japan, and the last nations the US declared war on were Romania/Bulgaria/Hungary.
Realistically speaking, everybody knows that the US has been in wars since then and not just brief military encounters.
I try not to be an unreasonable person. I can understand the need for a commander-in-chief to have to make split second decisions. You can't dick around in Congress while soldiers are being shot at or an embassy is being burnt to the ground, but that argument falls so flat in this scenario. They should be going to Congress. There's just no excuse.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 03:25 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 15:42, 29 Aug 2013.
|
it seems that all those american wars in the middle east are also about gas, and in particular, against Gasprom.
the goal would be to decrease the influence of russia in Europe by concurrencing it as a gas provider.
the US and UE have a pipeline project called Nabbuco. some of the potential gas providers are... Irak, Iran and Egypt.
Turkey would be the central node of the pipeline.
Syria is on the road of the pipeline, if gas is to come from Egypt.
in 2011 Iran, Irak and Syria signed an accord to build a pipeline that would provide Syria with Iranian gas. Then Syria would provide Europe through Greece. This project, as well as the russian "South Stream" and "North Stream" is another concurrent to Nabucco.
actually, it seems that US has a 2nd project, to provide Europe with gas from Qatar, through Syria.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 05:09 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 17:10, 29 Aug 2013.
|
Quote:
It's sad it had to come to this point. The international community is acting to late. There should have been a weapons embargo from the start.
That certainly would've helped. If you ask someone nicely not to sell/smuggle weapons in a theatre of war, he will have no choice but to stop selling/smuggling weapons in a theatre of war. After all, it's been done so many times before... just can't remember on which planet.
Quote:
With all the news being about intervention because somebody or assad used chemical weapons.
At this point the would-be-invaders present it as "Assad-or-Assad", there isn't really a "somebody". It's pretty likely that both sides have a lot of blood on their hands in this regard but even if the UN says "well, we are actually not quite sure who used the gases against whom", it won't matter in the end. Saddam also had bio-weapons, you know.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 29, 2013 05:58 PM |
|
|
|
and he also wanted to trade his petrol for euros.
|
|
VOKIALBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
posted August 29, 2013 06:41 PM |
|
Edited by VOKIALBG at 18:44, 29 Aug 2013.
|
Obama is nobel price for peace winner  Hell yeah! USA want this, for making the pressure against Iran bigger. The sad thing is, that our government will go to war with their american masters... and my tax will go for killing people... my poor little country, that have no army, will give for this 7 millions of euro... that's a lot for us. And we have 100% no interests in Syria. 100% It means that every citizen here will give 2 leva from his pocket for bullets and rockets.
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted August 30, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
|
Obama sucks (god i really hate that man and his blatant crowd-pleasing pandering and busybodyness) and this intervention is a big error.
The unarmed opposition in Syria itself is convinced Assad is NOT behind the gas attacks. Instead, they are adamant it's probably the radical islamic rebels who poisoned that neighbourhood to draw out the Americans (who threatened with invasion if such gas was used on the civilians), so they could dispose of Assad for them.
To me at least, this makes perfect sense. Why would the unarmed opposition lie about this? Besides, Assad is a lot of negative things, but a fool he is not. He is winning the war against the rebels and has no reason to like... mass murder entire neighbourhoods when the threat of an American invasion that can destroy all of his progress is looming in the background.
The Armed Opposition on the other hand. Boy, they have a lot of stuff to gain by such an invasion. The Islamic fundamentalist section of the Armed Opposition, like all fundamentalists, are self-righteous scumbags wouldn't mind sacrificing several hundreds of innocents For The Greater Good. They would also get away with it, since the NATO wants to dispose of Assad and Obama is looking for any reason to start an offensive.
Obama is being tricked and is too blinded by his own grandeur and inteventionist attitude to see it. Or alternatively, he *knows* what is actually going on, but acts the way he does to make himself more popular with the public opinion. Either way:  .
This is the Second Gulf War all over again.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
