I hear you, but I don't think this would ever happen.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
I hear you, but I don't think this would ever happen.
1. "I'm the guy with the gun." -Ashe. That's not arrogant, it's fact and it's practical.
2. Non Sequitur: the world community agrees Assad must be stopped.
Not really, no. It's a bunch of nonsense. Typical idiotic conspiracy theory crap. Like the now 10 year old conspiracy theory that we're intending to invade Iran. They even have a clip of someone claiming we intended 10 years ago to invade 7 countries in 5 years. Hmm.....didn't happen, did it? And now we have a different President who hasn't invaded anyone and has shown a strong reluctance to commit to military force.
CptBork, not sure about the "non-sequitur" thing.
Was looking up Europe/Russian fossil fuels issue, but have not yet found anything mentioning to do with Syria.
There is quite a lot about politics in that Europe/Russia issue, so you seem to definitely know a lot more about that then I do.
Actually, you most likely know more about alot of things than I do, but, I digress.
Anyway while surfing for that issue, I came across some other stuff that seemed related to the original Post.
Then, when I came back here and read your Post - the final sentence was kind of what I had came across earlier.
Got the links from my browser history - maybe worth you checking out.
Like I said, you seem to know more about Syria than I do - and politics - so links are below, if you want to check them out :
http://stienster.blogspot.com/2010/03/mossad-motto-by-way-of-deception-thou.html
http://www.nogw.com/mossad.html
Last edited:
I never said that issue was connected directly with Syria. It's part of my advice for Captain Kremmen about taking steps in general to contain aggressive expansionist regimes and their supporters. It only relates to Syria insofar as if Russia were to become involved in a military clash with American or European forces, cutting off Russian energy imports and seeking alternative sources would be an important retaliatory measure that would hit the Russian government very hard. Thankfully it doesn't look like Russia will intervene directly against a limited Western strike, so that should no longer be a major concern.
These are the kinds of sources I referred to when saying there are plenty of people out there, especially on the web, pedalling conspiracy theories centered around the idea that Israel and its Zionist legions control the Western world and its media. As I said, these kinds of people will not believe anything printed in Western media that agrees even partially with the Israeli narrative, because they view any such claims and supporting evidence as part of the overall conspiracy. They have their own worlds with their own facts and their own a priori truths, and their beliefs stem from psychological needs to feel empowered and superior to those they see as more successful and easy to target. My central argument against these kinds of people is that for all their claims that various coincidental events around the world are in fact not at all coincidental, their own claims require orders of magnitude greater assumptions and coincidences- they're utterly ridiculous and not even self-consistent.
So you're linking me to two websites which allege that Israel and its Mossad intelligence service were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and want my opinion? It's gutter trash fit to be printed on the same page of a tabloid mag next to a picture of Elvis on a UFO experimenting with steroids as he plans a career in the UFC. Not only are these kinds of nuts 100% certain that Zionists were behind the 9/11 attacks and various related incidents, but amongst them in their various subgroups, they're all 100% certain that Israel did it in 100 different ways.
By CptBork ; quote - "And the moral alternative would have been for the US to abandon the Pacific to Japan?"
No. Japan was invading other countries, and attacked America. Assad is trying to keep control of his own country.
Remove Assad, and you will leave a power vacuum, and extremists will fill it.
How many times does it have to happen, before the pattern sinks in?
America will cause chaos in Syria.
Britain is following behind, wagging its docile tail, as ever.
I have a feeling that the next few weeks are going to fill me with disgust.
No. Japan was invading other countries, and attacked America. Assad is trying to keep control of his own country.
Remove Assad, and you will leave a power vacuum, and extremists will fill it.
How many times does it have to happen, before the pattern sinks in?
America will cause chaos in Syria.
Britain is following behind, wagging its docile tail, as ever.
I have a feeling that the next few weeks are going to fill me with disgust.
Last edited:
I don't think you're post would be a revelation for Obama or his advisors and in fact the Obama administration already stated that Assad himself wouldn't be targeted. But if there's no response to Assad's use of chemical weapons w'ed be on a slippery slope towards a horrible new reality in which the use of WMD would be the norm and I think that trumps every objection.
If Obama can manage not to make a mess here, then he'll be doing well.
I hope you are right.
I hope you are right.
Well there are few good options here and the risks are significant. I do like the way Obama is approaching the situation. Unlike George Junior, Obama is not recklessly and mindlessly delving in with his eyes closed. Obama appears to be approaching the crisis cautiously and is well prepared and has a well thought out plan. That is something I have noticed about good lawyers and businessmen over the years, they always have well-planned goals, objectives, strategies and tactics. They are always several steps ahead of their opponents.
I hope we keep our arsh out of it . let them themselves solve their own problem. Unless we want to bring more immigrants to uplift out overbuild housing industry and feel the vacancy
I think the only legitimate argument for intervention is the moral argument related to WMD. However, I don’t think the US is the only power capable of inflicting retribution on the Syrian regime. Certainly people around the world expect the US to inflict retribution...to be the world cop on the beat. But others also have that ability. Turkey has the power to strike its neighbor. The United Kingdom and France also have the ability to mount surgical strikes against Syria.
As for Iran, I think they already see the US as “soft”. George Junior proved it to them when he botched the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and occupations. George Junior had some real opportunities there that he blew out of pure incompetence. And that is the kind of weakness that is difficult to ignore.
My god. If only you could see yourself. It'll never die, will it? Jingoism not under another name, but under every name. People like you will never learn. Maybe you can't.
BTW: George Jr. only botched the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (although both of those are more Obama's failings these days); the invasions went off pretty well, not that one would expect worse from the American army.
Iran will not topple over like Iraq.
A war with Iran could disrupt oil flow from Saudi Arabia for months or years.
Or worse, they could bombard Israel.
A nuclear strike by Israel on Iran could invite Russian retaliation.
You wouldn't know where the war would go.
Armageddon is not something to be rushed into.
A war with Iran could disrupt oil flow from Saudi Arabia for months or years.
Or worse, they could bombard Israel.
A nuclear strike by Israel on Iran could invite Russian retaliation.
You wouldn't know where the war would go.
Armageddon is not something to be rushed into.
You could always let them have Arizona.
Bells
Staff member
That depends.
Are your tax dollars worth more than the innocent civilians being killed with chemical weapons in Syria?
This should not be a struggle of conscience. I simply do not understand how and why it is such a struggle.
Let me put it to you this way.
Do you think Assad has the right to continue to use chemical weapons on his own populace?
Does his populace have any degree of human rights worthy of protection?
At what point will he have betrayed and insulted his responsibility as a leader of a country that would warrant international intervention?
At what point will the US deem it worthwhile, or more to the point, at what point will the US tax dollars mean less than gross human rights abuses? Where is the line? Because it was a fairly big line when it was deemed unacceptable to use chemical weapons to try to eradicate people like they were bugs.
So it is acceptable to just let him keep gassing his own populace?
Because it is your duty as a global citizen to care. You don't exist in a closed box. If you don't care about human rights, then you won't care about anything that happens anywhere. If that is the case, then stop touting yourself as the US of A and stop touting yourself as the leader of the free world, as the country that cares about freedom and human rights.
Yep. However not all failed states are slaughtering their civilians in large numbers, and not all of them are using weapons of mass destruction to commit such gross acts of human rights abuses.
How about this cost benefit analysis.
I want you to tell me how many dollars a life is worth? How much?
A hundred bucks? Thousand?
We have an ongoing situation where chemical weapons are being used to eradicate a portion of a population. If you think the region will be stable once his ethnic cleansing is done, you are kidding yourself. If you sit on your fat collective arses counting your tax dollars and making the 'cost benefit analysis' of a response, then when he and/or others decide to eradicate the civilian population of other countries, then you will not have a leg to stand on. As it is, the US is making itself a laughing stock of the world because its response to actual use of WMD's has been to sit on its hands counting its tax dollars, after going to war in another country because of the mere hint that there were WMD's there. Surely the irony hasn't escaped your notice.
Now is the time to step up. Because right now, WMD's are being used against a civilian population. And if the US does not help intervene, then it will be seen as the weak, narcissistic and selfish and it will lose what little credibility it has left.
You do not exist in this little vacuum. You exist in a global community and you need to decide whether you wish to be a part of that global community, or exist in this tiny little box that is the US and exclude yourself from the world. There is a reason why the world thinks the citizens of the US are self absorbed and do not know or understand the rest of the world. And frankly, the responses to air strikes against Assad's forces for using chemical weapons kind of spells out those reasons. And it's sad. Because each time atrocities have happened around the world, the US has always been last to the party to stop it. Now is the time to step up.
So how many tax dollars is a life worth if that life is not a US citizen?
A dollar?
Because once you start asking why should tax payers in the US have their tax dollars used to save lives overseas, then it is a safe bet to say that you will never have a moral leg to stand on.
Bells
Staff member
More than the last week has filled the world with disgust?
And just to reiterate. One does not try to keep control of one's country by using chemical weapons against civilians.
What is wrong with you people?
How could you have even said that with a straight face and tried to use it as a valid argument?
No, really. How?
There is no justification for what Assad is doing. None. I don't care if he was trying to keep control of his own anus. Dropping chemical bombs is in no way justifiable or acceptable in any circumstance.
I don't understand how anyone can opt for what you all seem to believe is the lesser evil here. Assad is not the lesser evil. The vacuum is the lesser evil. The greater evil is the arsewipe using chemical weapons on civilians and then bombing them to smitherines to try to get rid of the evidence.
How many atrocities do we have to witness that the US is too busy counting its dollars to try to help stop said atrocities? How many?
Syria is already in chaos.
When a leader of a country uses chemical weapons on his citizens, then he no longer has a legitimate right to rule. He has forfeited his right to his self imposed throne. He isn't trying to keep control of his country. He is trying to obliterate his opposition and he is trying to make sure that he murders the families and children of his opposition. If they were not Syrians, it would be ethnic cleansing and genocide. If those people were from another country or other ethnic background, then it would be deemed ethnic cleansing and genocide. But they are Syrians. And because of this, everyone seems to think 'well, it's an internal matter, let them deal with it'?
Really?
Again, I have to ask, what is wrong with you people?
At what point would you deem it acceptable to intervene?
If gassing his civilian citizens to death doesn't warrant intervention, what will?
"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."
-John Quincy Adams 1821
Q. What is wrong with you people?
No, what is wrong with you people?
How many people have to die before America understands that interfering in other countries does more harm than good.
Offer advice, offer aid if you wish, but keep your troops, drones, and missiles for yourselves.
Why not spend it on better housing, in America?
No, what is wrong with you people?
How many people have to die before America understands that interfering in other countries does more harm than good.
Offer advice, offer aid if you wish, but keep your troops, drones, and missiles for yourselves.
Why not spend it on better housing, in America?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/w...intervention-in-syria-officials-say.html?_r=0
From the article:
Even without the evidence that the inspectors are collecting, the United States and other Western powers have concluded that the attack last week, which killed hundreds of people, was caused by banned chemical munitions and that Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible, crossing a threshold that required a forceful response.
This concerns me.
I understand the reason that the US will be getting involved, but hoping this doesn't launch the US into a major war.
I don't think the US can handle another major war, financially, or otherwise. Anyone have any thoughts to this?
From the article:
Even without the evidence that the inspectors are collecting, the United States and other Western powers have concluded that the attack last week, which killed hundreds of people, was caused by banned chemical munitions and that Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible, crossing a threshold that required a forceful response.
This concerns me.
I understand the reason that the US will be getting involved, but hoping this doesn't launch the US into a major war. I don't think the US can handle another major war, financially, or otherwise. Anyone have any thoughts to this?
LOL, you are always good for a good laugh my friend. I see you are still nursing your neuroses. And George Junior did botch both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions. In Afghanistan he failed to use Marine forces to block the escape of al-Qaeda forces and as a result Bin Ladin got away. After all the whole point of the Afghanistan invasion was to get al-Qaeda and Bin Ladin. The invasion failed to accomplish its mission.
During the Iraq invasion, George Junior failed to secure military armories and key support facilities. And he dismantled the government. The result was a well-armed insurgency and 2nd longest war in American history. So as usual Geoffp your knowledge is just a wee bit lacking…actually a lot lacking.
Last edited: