The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

@Tiassa - As far as your statement : "So, yeah, please remember this if someone offers you that paranoid rant about how the People have no say in their American government."

That statement should apply to Any Government of any type!
Anyway, I, dmoe, stated : All I can say is, the American people only get to vote on what they are given to vote on - they are not consulted on all issues.

Tiassa, does your Government consult its people on ALL issues?


@Cptbork - As far as your statement : "Roose Bolton Putin thought he would be a clever little bugger and attempted to choreograph the G20 so as to leave Obama diplomatically isolated, but it backfired on his despotic KGB ass and now he's been forced to put forward a proposal he should have made three weeks ago"

Again this - from a site you sourced and led me to :
Debka - : http://www.debka.com/article/23247/I...vert-US-attack - which Debka dated : September 2, 2013, 9:59 AM (IDT) .

Only ONE WEEK ago - not THREE - but hey...
 
(chortle!)

DMoE said:

Tiassa, does your Government consult its people on ALL issues?
Click to expand...

No, and I wouldn't expect it to.

Again this - from a site [CptBork] sourced and led me to ....
Click to expand...

I really don't see your point here. Give the damn weapons to Iran?

Seriously, in the history of the godawful word "non-starter", that has to be one of the greatest examples of a "non-starter" I've ever witnessed.

No, seriously: Really?

Iran?
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Again this - from a site you sourced and led me to :
Debka - : http://www.debka.com/article/23247/I...vert-US-attack - which Debka dated : September 2, 2013, 9:59 AM (IDT) .

Only ONE WEEK ago - not THREE - but hey...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw that, was gonna make a mention of it but there's been so much going on and so many posts. I've been meaning to get back to you about the link you sent me regarding Congress claiming it wasn't being given enough info. My response was going to be that if it's true, Congress would have a democratic duty to block any military action until it was thoroughly satisfied that the action was necessary and justified. Seems only about half of Congress and 2/3 of Senate would vote for even limited military action at present, and with those numbers Obama would risk a humiliating domestic defeat unless he provides more evidence and makes a better case for whatever it is he plans to do.

I really do like Debka's reports, but so many of them are either false or unverifiable. If nothing else they do present a very interesting take on events, in my mind, which is generally consistent with well-publicized political developments and often seems to forecast them, as in the example you just posted. They spend a lot of time writing about diplomatic comings and goings throughout the Middle East, and make some very interesting claims about the alleged topics of discussion that come up when leaders meet, even when it's an Iranian official purportedly meeting a member of Hezbollah in secret, with no western involvement whatsoever. Now if anyone can find an article discussing Putin's proposal before Debka mentioned it, please do let me know. Debkafile also claims the German talk about Assad possibly being unaware of his army's chemical weapons usage might simply be a diplomatic window for him to negotiate without directly admitting any guilt.

Myself, I'd much prefer a diplomatic solution such as the one Putin's claiming to propose now, but it has to be credible, implementable on a short-term timescale and irreversible. That means if Assad changes his mind, it can't be as simple as breaking the locks on some storage facilities to go retrieve his weapons, or to fly them back in from Iran on short notice. Assad's arsenal needs to be completely removed from his control until such time as an overwhelming international consensus decides otherwise (which obviously it never will). Again, to remove Assad's greatest military threat to the region without firing a single shot would be a huge diplomatic triumph, might even save millions of lives that would otherwise expire sooner or later when someone eventually decides to use those warheads.
 
Left foot in, left foot out

Russia asked for an emergency meeting of the UN council, then withdrew it.

An emergency closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council on Syria was canceled after Russia withdrew its request for the session, Australia's UN envoy said on Tuesday.

"Following withdrawal of the request for consultations, Security Council meeting scheduled for 4 p.m. (2000 GMT) will not proceed," Australian Ambassador Gary Quinlan, president of the 15-nation council this month, announced on his Twitter feed @AustraliaUN.

The meeting was expected to focus on a Russian plan to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control, diplomats said on condition of anonymity.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.546257
Click to expand...

The diplomatic route is thus not off the table, although it appears to be teetering. No details on why the request was withdrawn. Did American officials propose something so crass as a timetable to avert delaying tactics on CW disarmament?

The new complication is a claim from (yes) intercepts that Assad may have not ordered the strikes[/quote].. Someone - I think it was milkweed - suggested the possibly of a military tipping-over move to destabilize Assad. Good time for it, probably, assuming the intercepts are accurate. Still not available so far as I can tell.
 
Tiassa said:
I really don't see your point here. Give the damn weapons to Iran?

Seriously, in the history of the godawful word "non-starter", that has to be one of the greatest examples of a "non-starter" I've ever witnessed.

No, seriously: Really?

Iran?
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if Iran didn't already have a biochem arsenal comparable in size to Assad's. Much bigger, more developed country with even greater paranoia about external threats, going to the nuclear threshold if not beyond. In my mind, transferring Assad's WMD's to Iran wouldn't seem like a bad outcome as long as measures were in place to guarantee those weapons would never be able to find their way back. Given Iran's vast history of weapons smuggling and US beliefs leaked via Wikileaks that Iran used Red Crescent aid shipments to send missiles to Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war, I doubt there would be a serious way to implement this idea in a satisfactory manner anyhow. Could be bogus info, or could just be Putin trying to stall for time. At this point it sounds like the proposal Obama and Putin are putting forward is to destroy Assad's arsenal once it's been confiscated, while Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem tries to buy more time by responding favourably to the idea without mentioning the part about actually destroying the weapons.
 
GeoffP said:
Someone - I think it was milkweed - suggested the possibly of a military tipping-over move to destabilize Assad. Good time for it, probably, assuming the intercepts are accurate. Still not available so far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. According to German claims, Assad's Generals have been wanting to use chemical weapons for months and he's been holding them back (at least up to August 21), so I doubt a military replacement would actually be working for democracy. Hezbollah's also reported to have mobilized 10,000 troops (presumably of varying levels of quality, many new inexperienced recruits) for the defense of Damascus in the event of a US attack, and I assume they would also be there to ensure that whatever replaces Assad in that eventuality would continue to support and assist their takeover of Lebanon, which won't go over well with Syrian Sunnis to put it lightly.
 
Cynicism, Fantasy, and the New Market Demand (or something like that)

CptBork said:

Hezbollah's also reported to have mobilized 10,000 troops (presumably of varying levels of quality, many new inexperienced recruits) for the defense of Damascus in the event of a US attack, and I assume they would also be there to ensure that whatever replaces Assad in that eventuality would continue to support and assist their takeover of Lebanon, which won't go over well with Syrian Sunnis to put it lightly.
Click to expand...

Part of me wants to joke that, okay, now it's on, if for no other reason than to make some of our domestic neighbors shut up. That is to say, look at what we just did to ten thousand Hizb'allahs with AKs and anti-aircraft rockets. Do you gun nuts really think you're going to stand off the U.S. government in your fantasy revolution?

But, of course, it's irrelevant, and the whole point, I think, is to get out of this without actually blowing anything up. At least, that's what the point ought to be, but who knows.

Maybe instead of Unocal and a pipeline, it should be AT&T and rebuilding Syria's communications infrastructure after we knock everything down. Cynical, yes, but we'll see one of those wars before this century is done, where we go blow stuff up for no real reason other than to loan someone money to pay American companies to rebuild everything.

Okay, I'll stop now. Quite certainly there are more useful things to do with my brain.

Oh, right. Gotta run.

:m:
 
@Tiassa

...NO, NO, NO...NO, NOT IRAN -sung to the tune of John McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran"...

Tiassa, I linked that to show that the IDEA of taking over control of Syria's CW's had been broached PRIOR to John Kerry's "...offhand remark".
...also see remark to CptBork!


@CptBork

CptBork, 100% in agreement with your Post(s) - especially the part about Syria's CW's going to Iran - would literally be a drop in the bucket!
 
CNN has a clock counting down to Obama's address. Amusing. And speaking of sarin, I recently noticed that the puking smiley spews from it's eyes.

For behold…
:puke:
 
re: Obama speech

re: Obama speech

Achtung! Spoiler contains severe profanity.​

Fuuuuuuuccccck!

Fuck!

Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck!

(This post will be revised for decency later. Apologies to your eyes and consciences.)

At any rate ... the transcript will be up later, but ....

When the president asserted unconditional authority to declare military action, it pierced my heart.

That's what the now-concealed tantrum was about.

He did dig himself out, though. Sort of. Kind of.

Without that line, though, this was an excellent speech. (As I disdain the current trend of vernacular instead of a more formal and—ahem!—academic lexicon and delivery, I cannot attest to any notion of "greatness".)

I mean, he did do well to dig out, and Andrea Mitchell repeated the stunt in smaller fashion on MSNBC only minutes later, but still, it was a dangerous and damaging line.
 
Last edited:
Now to work on the ceasefire between the two sides, and then start the negotiated settlement.
Ceasefire - "Stop" the fighting "Start " negotiations.
"Stop" then "Start"
Yell it out.
Don't be timid - disturb the library!
Go out on the streets and yell it out.
 
Your success with the "Stop" idea must be gratifying.
They all stopped, just like you said they would.
"Stop!" "Start!"
 
Captain Kremmen said:
Your success with the "Stop" idea must be gratifying.
They all stopped, just like you said they would.
"Stop!" "Start!"
Click to expand...
Thanks to you too for you were the only one who I could hear joining in.
The next "Stop" seems inevitable for Assad knows he could lose once he has no chemicals to sterilize some trouble spots. So will he agree to the Russian "Start" setting up a meeting with the rebels, for the Russians want to keep their Naval base, so in effect they have to be friends with both sides. That allows Assad to stay as Life President over a democratically elected parliament.
Is that an possible outcome? It certainly has the features satisfying everyone.

The shame is that is all the people wanted in the first place! Now they have to go back to smashed up cities.
 
CptBork said:
I doubt it. According to German claims, Assad's Generals have been wanting to use chemical weapons for months and he's been holding them back (at least up to August 21), so I doubt a military replacement would actually be working for democracy. Hezbollah's also reported to have mobilized 10,000 troops (presumably of varying levels of quality, many new inexperienced recruits) for the defense of Damascus in the event of a US attack, and I assume they would also be there to ensure that whatever replaces Assad in that eventuality would continue to support and assist their takeover of Lebanon, which won't go over well with Syrian Sunnis to put it lightly.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd never think democracy. I just think it's possible that his army went off and did it without him (assuming first that they did it, which is the more likely), but not likely. If that were the case, it would be a nice move for his brother or someone to have done it to put ol' Bashir off his pedestal and assume the throne. The army fires the shots, big brother gets the blame, and suddenly you're the new king. The Baathists cling more tightly to you to make sure they survive the transition, and presto done. It would still be a pretty tough job to pull off, of course. Not hugely likely, but it's there.
 
WWI ended the Ottoman Empire and as I told in post 881, the victors created the states of the Middle East, purposely drawing boundary lines to make them with great internal conflicts - easier to control and get their oil more cheaply. Just before WWI, the ottoman empire was already in decline - just a shadow of its former greatness, - the world's dominate power outside of Asia when Europe was in the Dark Age. Compare the two maps below:
250px-Territorial_changes_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_1913b.jpg
Direct link to post 881: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...nning-to-End&p=3107551&viewfull=1#post3107551
64886-004-2353B724.jpg


The mainly tribal people of the Middle East are not nations and have leaders, often religious ones, that for them function better than the "nations" imposed upon them, mainly by the British Foreign Office. Most of the instability in the Middle East is due to the artificial nations constructed there. World and they would be better off, if the reduced Ottoman Empire (first, smaller map) still existed; but there would be two main problems: (1) the "how to get there from here" and (2) that oil wealth needs to aid the people. I would suggest:

On (1) Turkey , seat of the Ottoman Empire be in charge of a resettlement program than allowed and funded the migrations so those all who wanted to live within areas where their tribal group were dominate and making the local laws etc. could do so. Sort of a house exchange program when possible.

On (2) To fund this resettlement /stabilization program, for a max of three years, 2/3 of the oil sales money would go to Turkey's government. During this period the local governments would be established - mainly as they have been for more than a 1000 years - councils of the respected leaders, both civil and religious. After this initial transition period, Turkey would get 1/3 of the oil income and be responsible for negotiating the price paid by the buyers for all oil removed from lands of basically the top map. One third of the oil income would be divided in proportion to the populations to fund the activities of the local governments, schools, hospitals, roads, etc. and reasonable administration cost (not graft, corruption, etc. with Turkey and UN reviewing what is "reasonable."). One third, in Turkish currency, would be divided and deposited in to each "primary" bank account. I.e. people could have more than one bank account but only one is their "primary account."

None of this, or anything like it, will happen, because the industrial military complex, not just in the US but Russia and Europe too, likes local wars and hates a peaceful Middle East.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Thanks to you too for you were the only one who I could hear joining in.
The next "Stop" seems inevitable for Assad knows he could lose once he has no chemicals to sterilize some trouble spots. So will he agree to the Russian "Start" setting up a meeting with the rebels, for the Russians want to keep their Naval base, so in effect they have to be friends with both sides. That allows Assad to stay as Life President over a democratically elected parliament.
Is that an possible outcome? It certainly has the features satisfying everyone.

The shame is that is all the people wanted in the first place! Now they have to go back to smashed up cities.
Click to expand...
''Allows Assad?'' lol The dude should be imprisoned for acts against humanity. He shouldn't be ''rewarded'' for killing his own people. There still needs to be punishment for what this man did. Not war, but he and his regime, need to be removed and tried for crimes against humanity. If you think this man wants 'democracy' ...think again. He doesn't. He needs to be tried for crimes against humanity, period.

The Nuremburg trials come to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

''Stop'' is fine, but maybe we should open all the prison doors and let all the murderers run free in the world. (as long as they promise to stop murdering) I guess if you are a dictator in a country that has economic value to other countries, then you can get away with murder.

This is what needs to be done:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/As...ia-Massacre_Us-syria-Invasion-130831-338.html
 
Assad can be President for Life all he wants, as long as the people keep re-electing him every 4 years or so. I agree with wegs that the man needs to be tried, and that he should never be welcomed back into the international fold until he's faced justice in an international court. Sometimes it might be momentarily advantageous to bribe a dictator into loosening his/her grip on power rather than forcing them out, but as a consequence the message to the next would-be dictator is that they can get away with many years of tyranny, only to be granted an easy exit when they face a rebellion and threaten to push things to the brink. I prefer that we send a universal message that no one will ever be let off the hook for tyranny, no matter who they threaten and how. The only plea bargain Assad should be granted is that by voluntarily submitting himself to justice, he assures himself a secure life behind bars rather than getting stabbed up the buttcrack like Gadhaffi.
 
Important:

Taken from the link that I've provided, above:

The United States should not take the law into its own hands and unilaterally attack Syria. We are not the world's policeman. We should support the rule of law and see to it that Assad is charged, arrested and convicted of crimes against humanity for using poison gas on his own citizens.

Bashar Hafez al-Assad is the President of Syria and Regional Secretary of the Syrian-led branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. He has served as President since June 10, 2000, when he succeeded his father, Hafex al-Assad, who ruled Syria for 30 years prior to his death.

Bashar al-Assad personally signed the Rome Statute for Syria on November 29, 2000. The Rome Statute created the International Criminal Court. Although the Syrian parliament never ratified the Rome Statute, the fact that Assad himself signed it should give the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over Mr. Assad.


The International Criminal Court is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide , crimes against humanity , war crimes and the crime of aggression . The Court is located inThe Hague , Netherlands, The Office of the Prosecutor is responsible for conducting investigations and prosecutions. It is headed by the Chief Prosecutor,

One of the great innovations of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence is the series of rights granted to victims. For the first time in the history of international criminal justice, victims have the possibility under the Statute to present their views and observations before the Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top