Syria Uproar?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
A win in terms of military engagement and a win in terms of long term successful nation building are two different things.

When you conflate the two you err from the path of good, solid, intellectually honest debate.[/quote]

Why are you bringing up this non-sequitur bullshit about winning military engagements. That was NEVER the goal. The goal was ALWAYS to destroy al Qaeda’s and other terrorist organization’s ability to operate in the region. We clearly have NOT succeeded there. Conflating the issue is about as detrimental to good, solid, intellectually honest debate as trying to wash over the fact that, while we have won a military engagement there, we never went there simply to win engagements but to accomplish the larger goal of wiping away safe havens. If anything, we’ve actually created more safe havens since it seems as if Iraq is now a massive training ground for jihadists all over the region.

Iraq is to Johnny Jihad what Dagobah is to Luke Skywalker.[/quote]

Permanently? That’s delusional. I don’t know whether you’ve realized this or not but during OEF and OIF we’d take control of those safe havens only to get told and pack it up and leave. The goal has always been a withdrawal. But to say there wasn’t any success as far as disrupting their activities goes is ridiculous. It’s just short term because there wasn’t a long term goal from the top down.

[/quote]

The goal has NEVER been to withdraw from a situation that will flare up again the second we leave. THAT is delusional. But that is essentially what happens. We kick the shit out of a bunch of Johnny Jihadists and their psychopath brethren, we declare victory with honor or whatever bullshit Madison Avenue catchphrase is the flavor of the month, and then the crazies ooze back into the vacuum we’ve left.

Of course there has been success in disrupting their activities. But that was never the goal and anyone who says it was/is is beyond delusional. “Oh gee, let’s just go blow some people up for the fuck of it. We’ll disrupt them for a decade or so, pull out, let them get a full head of steam again and then when they blow something else up here in the U.S. we’ll go back and beat the fuck out of them again for a little while. Rinse and repeat.” Yeah, right.[/quote]

What politicians want to do doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to make sense for them. The wars were already going to have a time limit, the public doesn’t like long wars and none of them want to deal with another Vietnam situation where it gets dragged out and loses all public support. What can they do about it?

  • Do the heavy lifting

  • Put a government in place

  • Use Iraq and Afghanistan for whatever strategic value they’ve until time runs out

  • Train a military and police force in both nations so you can eventually tell them it’s their problem

America can save face by shifting blame to Iraq and Afghanistan and it got to achieve every goal short turning Iraq and Afghanistan into bastions of freedom and democracy. That wouldn’t happen anyway, not for a long time. It’s been a few years since America has been out of Iraq and they’ve been fighting it out with ISI though, ISI lost a lot of popularity before the withdrawal since it’s killing so many civilians. The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqi people and in the future they might make something of it. Actually fighting ISI instead of just ceding control of the nation to them is a glimmer of hope for the future.

All things considered the military achieved everything it’s asked to do, the coach just told them to take a knee on their opponent’s five yard line and let the clock run out.

322

Well, been to Israel to visit my family. The feeling there is of disappointment. I think most feel the Sunni are better than the Shia, and thus support the rebels. But it’s like cancer vs. a heart attack to me. Both suck.

Most feel that as a result of Obama’s dithering, Assad will win but will become just that much more of a client nation to Iran, and eventually be a location for nuclear missles, akin to putting nukes in PA if you lived in NJ. Too close.

What people were hoping for was a much more forceful response to cause regime change in Syria and really thought the “very small” attack Kerry wanted was pretty useless.

This result (more Russian and Iranian arms, America seems weak and rudderless) seems the worst of all combinations.

323

John Kerry : We are talking about unbelievably small action…

Obama : The United States does not do pin pricks…

LULZ

324

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If anyone believes Assad is going to hand over all his chemical weapons is a fucking fool.

You have some of the biggest bullshitters in play here (Obama, Kerry, Putin, and Assad).

A man who gassed his own people is simply going to hand over his weapons ? … Right… good luck with that.[/quote]

Agreed, but saying he will buys him time. Funny nobody is asking him to hand over the conventional weapons that have killed WAY more people. He can keep those and kill as freely as he wants with that, as long as it’s not a chemical.[/quote]

Pat, we need to put blame on both sides of this civil war. I can tell you the opposition are not clean in killing of women, children, and unarmed citizens.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree. The opposition isn’t much better. I was just commenting on the weird message. Kill all you want, just don’t use chemicals to do it.

That’s why my proposed solution was to take control of the problem ourselves. It ain’t popular, it’s not going to happen, but if you want any hope at a positive outcome that’s really the only way I see it happening.
This is the debacles of debacles.

325

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If anyone believes Assad is going to hand over all his chemical weapons is a fucking fool.

You have some of the biggest bullshitters in play here (Obama, Kerry, Putin, and Assad).

A man who gassed his own people is simply going to hand over his weapons ? … Right… good luck with that.[/quote]

Agreed, but saying he will buys him time. Funny nobody is asking him to hand over the conventional weapons that have killed WAY more people. He can keep those and kill as freely as he wants with that, as long as it’s not a chemical.[/quote]

What’s his alternative? It isn’t like he can ship them out and say they don’t exist. He could however give them up for the time being and it’ll be enough to prevent American intervention. There isn’t enough domestic or international support for Obama to push through with action so if he can get Assad to give up the chemical weapons it’d be enough to declare some sort of victory.

The West is on the losing side of this little dick swinging contest, I think Assad stays in power. Support for the rebels is never going to gain any real momentum so there’s a limit to how much weight other nations can put behind them. The media is going to forget about this and so will the average person.[/quote]

I agree, except I don’t think Assad stays. I think it will be bloody as hell though.

Miley shakes her ass again and then, Syria who?

326

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Ugh, Can’t wait to see all the same people who hated Bush rally behind that shitty speech.

I’ll never understand how a prochoice person can use the death of children to justify anything, and remain intellectually honest. Because being sucked out with a vacuum is better than being gassed I guess…[/quote]

I am baffled everyday by that same thing. 1.2 million children killed every year is a ‘reproductive right’. 20 killed by an armed maniac is a heartbreaking tragedy. Logic need not apply. It’s all in the appearances.

327

[quote]b89 wrote:
Someone probably helped them develop the capability to produce them, Russia, and they’ve been doing it on their own. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for Syria to give them up.
[/quote]

“Someone” definitely did.

From the article I posted earlier:

“Syria’s chemical weapons program dates back to the early 1970s when they first acquired materials and expertise from Egypt prior to the 1973 war against Israel. Since then, it is believed that Syria has received assistance with their chemical weapons program from Russia, India, China and various West European countries.”

Those countries include Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria, Germany and the UK.

You know, the Axis of Evil.

Interesting thing about the British shipments of two deadly sarin nerve gas precursor chemicals between 2004 and 2010.

How deadly could these chemicals be, really, when they are routinely put into American municipal drinking water supplies and toothpaste?

(Answer: really, really deadly. But hey, gotta prevent cavities.)

328

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s why I partially commend whichever Syrians used the chemical weapons.
[/quote]

Just Wow!

329

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:
Someone probably helped them develop the capability to produce them, Russia, and they’ve been doing it on their own. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for Syria to give them up.
[/quote]

“Someone” definitely did.

From the article I posted earlier:

“Syria’s chemical weapons program dates back to the early 1970s when they first acquired materials and expertise from Egypt prior to the 1973 war against Israel. Since then, it is believed that Syria has received assistance with their chemical weapons program from Russia, India, China and various West European countries.”

Those countries include Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria, Germany and the UK.

You know, the Axis of Evil.

Interesting thing about the British shipments of two deadly sarin nerve gas precursor chemicals between 2004 and 2010.

How deadly could these chemicals be, really, when they are routinely put into American municipal drinking water supplies and toothpaste?

(Answer: really, really deadly. But hey, gotta prevent cavities.)

[/quote]

They could have just made meth and been rich!

330

[quote]pat wrote:

I am baffled everyday by that same thing. 1.2 million children killed every year is a ‘reproductive right’. 20 killed by an armed maniac is a heartbreaking tragedy. [/quote]

“A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.”

331

[quote]pat wrote:

They could have just made meth and been rich![/quote]

Can you make meth out of fluoride? I’ll bet Walter White could. That would be great: no more meth mouth.

Seriously, though, the Syrian opposition doesn’t need to produce any methamphetamine to finance its operations: it’s getting plenty of funding from the sale of Afghan heroin, the production of which wouldn’t be possible without Uncle Sam.

332

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
If anyone believes Assad is going to hand over all his chemical weapons is a fucking fool.

You have some of the biggest bullshitters in play here (Obama, Kerry, Putin, and Assad).

A man who gassed his own people is simply going to hand over his weapons ? … Right… good luck with that.[/quote]

Agreed, but saying he will buys him time. Funny nobody is asking him to hand over the conventional weapons that have killed WAY more people. He can keep those and kill as freely as he wants with that, as long as it’s not a chemical.[/quote]

Pat, we need to put blame on both sides of this civil war. I can tell you the opposition are not clean in killing of women, children, and unarmed citizens.
[/quote]

There was another article about this happening in Syria by the opposition forces, but I can not seem to find that article anymore.

Both sides are crap IMO, and we should not back either of them.

333

Here you go dmaddox.

There is a multitude of articles, from sources of varying credibility and bias. But I don’t think you can fault my choice of the Christian Science Monitor.

Somebody remind me…WHY does the United States government support these al-Qaeda-allied Syrian malcontents and mercenaries?

334

You know you’re fucked when you’re stuck trusting Assad and Putin.

335

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You know you’re fucked when you’re stuck trusting Assad and Putin. [/quote]

No… you know you’re fucked when you realize your choice is between trusting Assad and Putin, or Kerry and Obama.

336

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, been to Israel to visit my family. The feeling there is of disappointment. I think most feel the Sunni are better than the Shia, and thus support the rebels. But it’s like cancer vs. a heart attack to me. Both suck.

Most feel that as a result of Obama’s dithering, Assad will win but will become just that much more of a client nation to Iran, and eventually be a location for nuclear missles, akin to putting nukes in PA if you lived in NJ. Too close.

What people were hoping for was a much more forceful response to cause regime change in Syria and really thought the “very small” attack Kerry wanted was pretty useless.

This result (more Russian and Iranian arms, America seems weak and rudderless) seems the worst of all combinations.[/quote]

I figured Israel would like the instability losing Assad would create for Syria, it’d diminish Iran’s power in the region and Iran is Israel’s biggest threat at the moment. Actually, they’ve nothing but threats surrounding them.

Syria had a nuclear site before Israel destroyed it, it’s going to help Iran’s nuclear program. With or without the weapons I think Iran getting nukes would be a nuisance for Israel as far as escalation goes. Lebanon and Syria will see it as a get out of free card to mess with Israel whenever they want.

337

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here you go dmaddox.

There is a multitude of articles, from sources of varying credibility and bias. But I don’t think you can fault my choice of the Christian Science Monitor.

Somebody remind me…WHY does the United States government support these al-Qaeda-allied Syrian malcontents and mercenaries? [/quote]

At first we just sent them stockpiles of weapons from Libya, whatever we didn’t attempt to destroy so AQ wouldn’t get it. Sending weapons to an AQ affiliate like a boss. Then we got Saudi Arabia to act as a third party to secure weapon and money shipments. They didn’t even use the money to fund attacks on us… Like a boss! We’d our little franchise of freedom fighters showing Iran what’s up and letting him know they’re going to lose a key ally, it’ll diminish their power and influence in the region. Like a boss. Then the coup loses all momentum and we say “Hey, bro. We don’t do pin pricks. We do big dawg shit. Promise you wont use anymore chemical weapons and hand them over or else!”.

Actually taking the mindfuck games to Iran? Pshh, that’s for losers.

338

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You know you’re fucked when you’re stuck trusting Assad and Putin. [/quote]

No… you know you’re fucked when you realize your choice is between trusting Assad and Putin, or Kerry and Obama. [/quote]

This. I’ve been entertained seeing some die-hard right wingers swinging from Putin’s nuts as a heroe in this case. Its rather entertaining. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Also, are we at war yet, or are we just dragging along with posturing. I feel like there was a giant build-up and instead of a climactic finish, there was a political queef instead.

339

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
It’s why I partially commend whichever Syrians used the chemical weapons.
[/quote]

Just Wow![/quote]

Naturally, you chop out the rest of the post that makes the real point I was getting at. I wouldn’t expect a war monger to do anything different.

340

And with this Obama should feel like a douche.

MOSCOW ? RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization ? the United Nations ? was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations? founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America?s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria?s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today?s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack ? this time against Israel ? cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America?s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ?you?re either with us or against us.?

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government?s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president?s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States? policy is ?what makes America different. It?s what makes us exceptional.? It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord?s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.