Spoken like any good captain should. It is what you would do too.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Capt K "No. He would lose face. The bombing must go ahead."
Spoken like any good captain should. It is what you would do too.
Yes, it's like the time I made the whole crew walk the plank, and had to run the ship on my own.
It was the only sensible thing to do.
Captain Kremmen, I do not understand.
"No."
"He would lose face."
"The bombing must go ahead."
"...forget that minor problem and talk about preventing WWIII."
Is this Thread, a "Farce" also?
I am not so sure that it must. Obama rather cleverly tossed the decision over to congress today which takes the political heat off of Obama and puts it into the hands of his nemesis in congress. In the meantime, he has the barrel of several guns staring down Assad’s regime. If Assad moves, those barrels could, in an instant, rein destruction on Assad’s regime. And Obama could always say that he gave clear and uncertain warnings to Assad. If Assad persists in using gas to kill off his own people, he will have no one to blame but himself for the outcome. Obama’s decision to toss the military decision to congress today was brilliant.
A Farce.
From beginning to end.
@ Joepistole
He doesn't have to be brilliant, just not monumentally stupid.
The best person to control Assad is Putin.
If he can delay things a few days, he will have ample opportunity to talk to him.
From beginning to end.
@ Joepistole
He doesn't have to be brilliant, just not monumentally stupid.
The best person to control Assad is Putin.
If he can delay things a few days, he will have ample opportunity to talk to him.
Future Presidents: A Double-Take
An exercise in contrasts:
In either case, take it for what it is, a smack-in-the-forehead moment. Head meet desk.
Chuckle and sigh?
Maybe a sad shaking of the head?
A shrug that amounts to a twitch of one eyebrow?
No, really. There's always one who sees any trajectory as a demand for crash-and-burn, every moment as wanting to be made better by some sort of psychointellectual disaster.
Undermining the authority of future presidents?
If nothing else, at least President Obama will have that memory. No matter how badly our Syrian adventure goes, he will always be able to look back on that one from Rep. King's office with a sparkle in his eye and a disbelieving grin tugging at one corner of his mouth.
An exercise in contrasts:
In either case, take it for what it is, a smack-in-the-forehead moment. Head meet desk.
Chuckle and sigh?
Maybe a sad shaking of the head?
A shrug that amounts to a twitch of one eyebrow?
No, really. There's always one who sees any trajectory as a demand for crash-and-burn, every moment as wanting to be made better by some sort of psychointellectual disaster.
Undermining the authority of future presidents?
If nothing else, at least President Obama will have that memory. No matter how badly our Syrian adventure goes, he will always be able to look back on that one from Rep. King's office with a sparkle in his eye and a disbelieving grin tugging at one corner of his mouth.
Isn't Congress on break until Sept. 9th ? So would this mean no military action until at least then?
Obama's move today was brilliant! I have to chuckle. I cannot help but wonder about Boehner's response to the news.
Caught this interview with Russell Brand, by Alex Jones. I am not a big fan of Alex Jones - but the views and ideas put forth by Russell Brand are spot on, at least to me.
The interview last the better part of 28 minutes or so, but is well worth watching/listening to - it covers Syria and especially how the media/corporations/governments attempt to control peoples thoughts/ideas/perceptions of the world and events/actions.
I know...1/2 an hour...worth it though if one is really interested in the crux of this Thread!
link : - http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/video-russell-brand-trashes-media-in-new-interview/64579/
The interview last the better part of 28 minutes or so, but is well worth watching/listening to - it covers Syria and especially how the media/corporations/governments attempt to control peoples thoughts/ideas/perceptions of the world and events/actions.
I know...1/2 an hour...worth it though if one is really interested in the crux of this Thread!
link : - http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/video-russell-brand-trashes-media-in-new-interview/64579/
If Congress votes in the affirmative for military strikes in Syria and it turns out to be a disaster in any way, well it just takes the blame game off the table, doesn't it? Brilliant indeed!
How is that middle finger you just got from our President feel Mr. John King? Hmmm, no longer a no win situation politically speaking that is!
How is that middle finger you just got from our President feel Mr. John King? Hmmm, no longer a no win situation politically speaking that is!
Caught what you did there, wegs - and you tell me to change my name.
Wiink...Wiink (; worth at least 2!
Last edited:
Yes, I'm saying that countries such as Iran and Russia have been involved in the Syrian repression from the very beginning, i.e. Russian weapons and intel, Iran Revolutionary Guards operating in an advisory role and limited combat, Hezbollah operating near the Lebanese border, etc. In fact, they were assisting the regime in its repression far before the protests and subsequent civil war broke out. It was never an internal Syrian matter.
I'm saying that if a popular uprising occurred in Saudi Arabia and the US started sending troops and equipment to assist the existing government, their participation could not be considered "internal Saudi politics" any more than it would be "internal" if China sent troops and supplies to assist the rebels. So it's completely hypocritical for Russia to be selling weapons to a dictator who pays with money stolen from his own people, and to have Shiite troops from Iraq, Iran and Lebanon assisting with logistics and ground combat, only to complain about Chechen rebels wielding Qatari arms or an American entry into the war as if these were the first foreign intrusions. I'm not arguing that the participation of other foreign actors automatically legitimizes or necessitates America's presence, but America's entry would not be unique other than coming from a superpower which can overpower all of the other actors combined when it's willing to pay the price.
I believe the Arab Spring manifested itself mostly as a reaction to poor governance and the newly emergent forms of mass media. In the past, Arab dictators held tight control over the information and messages streaming to their citizens. Foreigners and Arabs travelling abroad could be easily suppressed in small numbers when they'd tell tales which conflicted with the government line. Anything bad that happened to them was ultimately Israel's fault, or the US or Britain or some other perceived Whitey McWhiterson. Over the last decade with the spread of the internet and other technologies, they're able to have the same kinds of conversations we have here and to see what's said about the same issues in other parts of the world, as well as having far greater exposure to the dissident message at home. Then there's Google, which has proven itself to be a gift from the gods of factfinding, the search engine of choice for do-gooders, rogues and scoundrels all alike.
If you go over the timeline of events in the Arab Spring, it began with the revolt in Tunisia against President Useless or whatever his name was. He spent many years carefully cultivating his image as America's darling, which gave him high status in a country which holds great esteem for America's military, cultural and economic might. Then Bradley Manning leaked his documents via Wikileaks and ordinary Tunisians saw that in private, American officials held great disdain for Tunisia's president and his repressive autocracy, which led them to organize a rebellion against him via Facebook, text messaging and Twitter. In the past a brutal regime could massacre an entire town (as Bashar Assad's father did 30 years ago), and word about it would only get out very slowly, with limited details and evidence. The people as a whole could rarely coordinate an open rebellion and had no way of even knowing if their cause had any popular support outside their local communities.
Then once President Useless was overthrown, other Arab countries saw that the idiots in charge weren't nearly as invincible as they'd spent years pretending.
The rebels have never up to this point shown anything remotely close to the ability to coordinate a mass shelling like what was seen in the rebel-held Damascus suburbs right before the attack, this on top of multiple independent streams of information that the shelling came from masses of heavy artillery batteries in neighbourhoods firmly under Assad's control. Multiple rebel-held areas were hit nearly simultaneously, massive quantities of sarin were systematically released in one neighbourhood after the next over a very short period in conjunction with the shelling, I think the whole attack took less than 90 minutes in total. Then immediately after the gas hit, the Syrian army quadrupled its conventional barrage from what had been occurring over the previous 10 days. Did the rebels just happen to somehow accumulate mass quantities of the stuff in the very neighbourhoods Assad was planning to attack, and conveniently release it in each of those neighbourhoods as it came under shelling? If that's what Al Nusra can do in a single day, and choose the timing to match precisely with Assad's own activities, why the heck are they having so much trouble fighting this war?
We have to note that virtually all the claims of "evidence" about rebels mounting chemical attacks are coming from the same organizations and countries which have scientifically proven that Assad poops golden roses. Why'd Assad hold up the UN inspectors right at his doorstep for 5 days when the UN Secretary General himself said most of the evidence would chemically decay or be destroyed within a few days? Ban Ki Moon had to fly one of his personal assistants over to Syria just to make sure Assad couldn't pretend the phone lines weren't working.
So are the good folks in charge of Iran and Hezbollah, while Russia seems to be prepping for the 2013 Douchebaggery World Championships prior to the very, very ungay 2014 Olympics at Sochi. The biggest difference is that the douchebag in Syria is part of an ethnic minority in his country and therefore represents the weak link in the Shiite crescent, so that's where the repression and brutality is most visible and most widely observed in the world media. We should harbour no illusions that any of these are people we can at present reason with or that their visions of global domination are really any different than those held by Al Qaeda, other than exhibiting slightly greater patience while they gather strength in their own arena.
Go type "Assad torture" into Youtube and look at the staggering number of torture and murder videos sold or published by Syrian army soldiers, Hezbollah and their affiliated militias, or found on their phones when they're captured or killed in battle. These people are every bit as bad as Hitler, and their propaganda tactics are borrowed almost directly from his playbook. It's a small wonder so many conspiracy nuts and white supremacists sympathize with these crazies. The only thing that made Hitler more dangerous was that he ran a far more developed country with an army many orders of magnitude more powerful for its time.
If it's not settled in Syria, it'll be settled somewhere closer to home. As long as Iran and their allies are governed at the top by Muslim leaders who preach that nonbelievers live in the service of a demon, the West and its allies are never going to have peace. Shia militant leaders don't have a fixed timeline on when they need to spark a confrontation as long as they have a general sense that their cause is constantly moving forward. The only question is whether America will one day have to deliver one of those generational spine crushing blows to make them rethink matters for at least a few decades, or whether it'll be sufficient and possible to drain their economies to dust until they come to their senses. Preventing Iran from controlling Syria is both a democratic imperative and a highly desirable strategic outcome that will force them to cool their heels.
Obama's move today was brilliant! I have to chuckle. I cannot help but wonder about Boehner's response to the news.
I've been thinking lately that if dispersing his equipment and forces was such an advantageous thing for Assad to do in his own conflict, he would have done that more than 2 years ago. Given the balance of forces in this conflict, I imagine Assad's army is most effective when concentrated and focussed on a small selection of targets at any given time. Let them hide away in their corners and stay dispersed, keep them guessing what and when America might strike while the rebels fight them on more equal terms... and then maybe next time they gather the guns together to level another neighbourhood to the ground, make them disappear.
I agree with those suggesting Assad's palace should be hit whenever a strike does occur. Easy target, costs come out of Assad's own pocket unless he wants to start filching from his own supporters, let him live in slightly less privacy and comfort for the rest of this terrible war he started. Give them an hour's notice and then kablooey, take out that prized car collection and all his other precious toys.
CptBork, thanks for the clarification.
As I stated - assumptions and presumptions have no true place in serious discussions (in my understanding).
Again, thank you.
As I stated - assumptions and presumptions have no true place in serious discussions (in my understanding).
Again, thank you.
Thank you for your whole post it was very informative regarding all the players and your take on the Arab Spring sounds right on. This part of your post in particular caught my eye General, sound advice and good reasoning.
I should add that the Tunisian vendor who lit himself on fire in desperation/protest was also a big turning point in the Arab mindset, and it had a major domino effect on the region. Again, in the past it wouldn't have received widespread attention, but in the information age things are different.
Raise a Glass
We should be clear ... Mohamed Bouazizi was the catalyst. He has earned his place in the canon of human exceptionalism, and should be remembered throughout the democratic push against Islamist and other authoritarian governments in Islamic society.
CptBork said:
We should be clear ... Mohamed Bouazizi was the catalyst. He has earned his place in the canon of human exceptionalism, and should be remembered throughout the democratic push against Islamist and other authoritarian governments in Islamic society.
In 100 years I'd never have the balls to do what he did, even if it was to save 1000 lives.