| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.That isn't the argument. The argument is that allowing the use of chemical weapons without consequences is a Pandora's box. It isn't (just) what has happened, but what might happen.
Isn't this an absurd argument for the US to make in light of the fact that we helped Saddam gas the Iranians?
How can the US possibly make the argument that invading Syria is a moral imperative?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course I oppose all of our preemptive military strikes.
I am confused about the intellectual soundness of punishing Assad for killing his own people by dropping bombs on his people.I have seen this brought up more than once. The idea is not to drop bombs on just anyone. The idea would be a limited strike against specific military targets. The questions I have are, which targets and what do we hope to accomplish by this?
"Precise" drone strikes have killed, what? 200+ children? Who-knows-how- many hundreds of civilians?
I am pretty cynical about the US's ability to carry out limited strikes against specific military targets.
I think we are in the 500 range for women and children in just Pakistan.
The record for standoff strikes with out ground support is less than stellar.
Awesome battlefield weapons, until the wind changes. They had far more psychological impact in the first world war than "practical"* - and still do.
Which is why you launch them from a missile these days instead of from a howitzer. The wind doesn't blow them THAT far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from being more indiscriminate, none of your listed reasons are actually true.
Chemical weapons are very fiddly to make, difficult to store and use and very tricksy in the field.
Which only leads to expense if you care about the people storing and moving your weapons and those around where they're deployed. I don't think any of those are a problem for Aasad.
You also ignored faster. They killed between 500 1,400 people in one day, considerably faster than the conflict in general.
All of which make them expensive. If you absolutely want a value for money when it comes to killing, pick a machete (cf: Rwanda) or pick an AK-47.The problem with taking out 100,000 people with machetes and AK 47's is that you need 50,000 people under your control more willing to point the weapons away from you than towards you. With a mechanized killing factory you need control over a smaller number of people and facilities.
So why are we against "chemical weapons" - by this I mean pretty much poison gas, rather than the more acceptable White Phospour, Napalm and depleted uranium?Because conventional war is a game we can't loose. You can't invade the US with planes tanks and automobiles. You can;t resist a us invasion with planes tanks and automobiles. As long as war is planes tanks and automobiles we can't loose and we can't even be seriously hurt.
If they start using chemical weapons on each other, it won't be long till they start using them on us. They want to nip it in the bud before it gets to that point, and I think Assad deserves a daisy cutter to the head anyway.
If you think we have some ulterior motive here I'm listening. I don't see a play that gets us the nice stable friendly dictator of our choosing here, so whats our real motive with this?
I think you are seriously over estimating the lethality of chemical weapons. They are good at some things like generating civilian casualties, slowing down some conventional forces, and creating fear, but they are costly to manage, unreliable, and challenging to use against conventional forces.
I tend to see their main value to Assad as generating terror more than generating casualties.
Basically they are scary, and that helps Assad and Obama.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone from the State Department has just been on the radio specifically denying that the US is aiming at regime change in Syria.
I remember a Minister in the UK Government saying the same thing about Iraq in 2003, which is why I'm inclined to take what she says with a pinch of salt.
Bunging a few missiles at Assad isn't very likely to deter him from doing anything horrendous in future. Doing anything more than that stands a good chance of pushing the Russians/Chinese that little bit too far, not to mention possibly giving the Syrian opposition the edge they need over the present regime.
Given what happened (and is happening) in Iraq, I would not like to be an Alawite, or a Christian, or a member of any other Syrian minority if that happened. Given what the ruling clique has been up to, things are going to get *really* nasty if the other lot come out on top, as tends to happen in civil wars.
I would encourage folks to contact their congress critters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most influential post-war Prime Minister in Japan actually defied some political directives of the US government and military. He was a pacifist and focused government efforts on economic recovery, part of his strategy being to spend nothing on the military, relying on the US to conduct defense and foreign relations.
He lost power after one term, but then regained it and retained it for 3 more elections. During that period Japan had over 70% voter turnout among men and over 65% turnout among women.
At certain points, the US actually tried to get Japan to spend MORE money on defense, but they refused.
There is now a growing sentiment of independence from the US military, but Article 9, which outlaws belligerence as a foreign policy tool, remains in effect.
Yoshida definitely worked with the American's, but it was the American's who came around to his way of thinking about how to run the country. He favored a slow liberalization of the social policy and utilizing older bureaucrats and industrialists (ones who had been around prior to and during the war). His party, the Democratic-Liberal, effectively controlled the government until the 1990's, well after the occupation had ended. To me, that indicates that his methods and philosophy were successful and popular with the country, not just occupation forces.
Democracy must come from within.
|
The Messiah has declared 'He was elected President to End Wars.'
I Thought it was to do better by the US and its citizens by preventing Wars but hey...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everytime someone refers to the Democrats as "the Left", I cry.
Unless you also cry when someone refers to Republicans as "the Right" then you are revealing your own bias right here. In terms of American politics Republicans are "right" and Democrats are "left" in all the standard political terms.
When compared to overall geopolitics both parties are fairly centrist, although both have factions that can get close to their respective edges.
One thing that always makes me chuckle is how few modern liberals realize how centrist Bill Clinton actually was. In many ways the guy was to the right of Mitt Romney.
I think the left right linear model ceased being useful quite a while ago.
Isn't this an absurd argument for the US to make in light of the fact that we helped Saddam gas the Iranians?
Putting aside for a moment that I'm not sure how much sense it makes to treat a country like a hive mind -- especially decades later -- or what our actual intentions were (I admit I'm not well informed on the topic), being a hypocrite != being wrong. The United States has nuclear weapons, but I'm also pretty sure it is in our best interest to stop Iran from getting them.
Libya, yes... and Iraq. And Afghanistan. And Egypt. Just to mention the latest round of misery. Go back a while, and there is Bosnia, which, having been made a "UN protectorate" showed itself to be a hotbed of bribes, lawlessness, corruption, and all things nice. I guess... maybe... after the fighting was done, certain deals were made... that would bring profit to the US for a number of years...
If I didn't know better, I could begin to think that maybe, somewhere, just maybe, there were American (and other) military decision-makers that WANTED unstable regions that would come to end up in ACUTE, HORRIBLE CRISES that would necessitate military intervention in the future...
Nah. It's obviously a ridiculous idea.
Then,
I don't blame America for Yugoslavia. I am just saying that if the US had wanted to do well to Bosnia, Egypt and the others, they could have, based on things they did earlier. I see very little that is comical about it.
Oh. Sorry for my misunderstanding.
You're right; the knee-jerk reaction to try and figure out how to blame the US for all of the problems in the world really isn't funny, it's actually kinda sad.
What else is kinda not funny but sad in an ironic way is not two weeks ago somebody accused me of reductionism and said chidingly, "It's okay; we understand.....mostly Americans do this reductionism thing..."
NOW: the U.S.A. cannot go into Bosnia/Egypt/Libya/whatever else you have and run the Marshall plan.
There's too many other douchebags doing douchey things in the world to allow this.
In 1946, we could run the Marshall Plan, in Deutschland and Nippon.
It cannot necessarily be done now. In 1918 we couldn't. Things that happened in 1918 essentially brought about the advent of the vast majority of the world's messes that we have ALL been trying to clean up for damn near 100 f*$%ing years now.
Why it is sad......
It gives the "corrupt douchebags" in Bosnia a free pass. They're monkeys in a cage, flinging poo. If it's all the Ugly American's fault, well they all get a free pass.
It's not funny really, it's insipid.
Personally, I blame Otto Von Bismark and Gavrilo Princip. Not that some other dill holes would have figured out how to screw the 20th century all to hell anyway. I mean, Stalin,.....Hitler,....they get a free pass. They're nothing more than monkeys flinging poo that the European powers built a cage for when they chopped up the world in a colonialist Papal Bull and saddled Germany with ungodly war reparations.
All I got to say is this: the rest of you guys all better watch out for that Putin guy. In this postamerican world, we're not going to be there any more. Good luck!!! Call us if you need us.
Obama's going to pop 40 cruise missiles and do a no fly zone, and call it a moral victory for The Great and Wise and Highly Scientific Philosopher King Obama.
End of story.
What else is kinda not funny but sad in an ironic way is not two weeks ago somebody accused me of reductionism and said chidingly, "It's okay; we understand.....mostly Americans do this reductionism thing..."
In all fairness to Madame Sissyl and all other non-Americans, this somebody was an American.
More fun articles:
How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
Iran-Contra Redux? Prince Bandar Heads Secret Saudi-CIA Effort to Aid Syrian Rebels, Topple Assad (This one's for you, Comrade Nicos)
And, really fun stuff:
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
and
The provenance of Mint Press News
Who knows? Not me!
EDIT: Oh yeah, for shiznits and giggles, the latest episode of Crash Course.
Unbiased Slogans
Down with the Mullahs and Colonels and Jihadis and Sheikhs!
For Workers Revolution!
US/UN/France: Hands Off Syria!
Vive le Galt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Near as I can tell, the US has been backing rebels from one extent to another since the war started,
with the CIA helping channel weapons and supplies thru Croatia and Turkey and Jordan.
The idea that the US stance is not a continuation of it's sponsorship of violent groups in Syria,
but is purely motivated by a neutral moral stance against chemical weapons
flies in the face to the US ignoring or shrugging off repeated evidence of rebel use of chemical weapons,
whether from chlorine attacks, to low-grade archaic production process sarin attacks:
"In August rebel forces took Sabbagh’s [chlorine gas] factory by force, as part of a sweep that also netted them an electricity station and a military airport about 30 km from Aleppo. Sabbagh, who has since fled Aleppo for Beirut, says his factory is now occupied by Jabhat al-Nusra, a militant group with strong ties to al-Qaeda that has been designated a terrorist group by the U.S... If it turns out chlorine gas was used in the attack, then the first possibility is that it was mine. There is no other factory in Syria that can make this gas, and now it is under opposition control”(Reuters:)
U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday... "There are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television. "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,"(AP:)
Russian experts determined that Syrian rebels made sarin nerve gas and used it in a deadly chemical weapon attack outside Aleppo in March... [according to] an 80-page report to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The samples taken from the impact site of the gas-laden projectile were analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Churkin said. He said the analysis showed that the unguided Basha'ir-3 rocket that hit Khan al-Assal was not a military-standard chemical weapon. Churkin said the results indicate it "was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin." He said the samples indicated the sarin and the projectile were produced in makeshift "cottage industry" conditions, and the projectile "is not a standard one for chemical use." The absence of chemical stabilizers, which are needed for long-term storage and later use, indicated its "possibly recent production," Churkin said. "Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it was the armed opposition fighters who used the chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal," Churkin said. "According to information at our disposal," he added, "the production of 'Basha'ir 3' unguided projectiles was started in February 2013 by the so-called 'Basha'ir al-Nasr' brigade affiliated with the Free Syrian Army." On Monday Syria invited Ake Sellstrom, head of the U.N. fact-finding mission on allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, and U.N. disarmament chief Angela Kane to visit Damascus for foreign-minister level talks on conducting a probe of the Khan al-Assal attack. The Russian ambassador strongly backed the idea, calling it "a promising process" that hopefully will lead to an investigation.
The US did not even urgently seek confirmation of those events, much less decide to go to war in days, when those event occured, and in fact they don't appear to have even responded to that 80 page report. The UN teams were in fact supposed to further investigate some of those previous attacks when they were sent to Syria, but mysteriously they simply left after the briefest of investigations into the latest attack.
The US, which seems to cavalierly dismiss evidence pointing to chemical weapons use by groups it is militarily backing, wants to justify a hair-trigger war on the flimsiest of evidence (remember, until the UK submitted it to a Parliament vote, the US President was never going to do so, and has continued to emphasize how it doesn't believe itself subject to Congressional approval in order to start such a war): such as some communications intercept which it won't provide the actual recording of but we are supposed to believe the official interpretation of (although leaks from military sources also put it in doubt, and even the regime acknowledges isn't conclusive evidence), and for further credence they include this in their dossier:
(FAIR:)
A key point in the government's white paper is "the detection of rocket launches from regime-controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media." It's unclear why this is supposed to be persuasive. Do rockets take 90 minutes to reach their targets? Does nerve gas escape from rockets 90 minutes after impact, or, once released, take 90 minutes to cause symptoms?
Clearly they have a strong case if they included such a detail in their dossier.
Meanwhile, their dossier simply ignores or dismisses out of hand any possibility of any other actor being behind the event whose details are still not known.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why there's plenty of reason to believe rebels possess chemical weapons and capability to use them:
Because... they say so themself? (Today's Zaman)
Such as the CIA says so?The political adviser of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has claimed that the Syrian opposition is capable of putting together components of chemical weapons and using them if necessary.
Bassam Al-Dada told Turkey's state-run Anatolia news agency on Wednesday that the Syrian opposition has the necessary capability and raw materials to produce chemical weapons.
Analysis of an al-Qa'ida document recovered in Afghanistan in summer 2002 indicates the group has crude procedures for making mustard agent, sarin, and VX.Because their Al-Qaeda Iraq / al-Nusra friends seem to have been keeping themself busy? (BBC):
The authorities in Iraq say they have uncovered an al-Qaeda plot to use chemical weapons, as well as to smuggle them to Europe and North America. Defence ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said five men had been arrested after military intelligence monitored their activities for three months. Three workshops for manufacturing the chemical agents, including sarin and mustard gas, were uncovered, he added.Because Sarin is just so fun to keep around your little militant safehouse? (Today's Zaman)
Seven members of Syria's militant al-Nusra group were detained on Wednesday after police found sarin gas, which was reportedly going to be used in a bomb attack, during a search of the suspects' homes, Turkish media have reported... two kilograms of sarin gas, which is usually used for making bombs and was banned by the UN in 1991, had been found in the homes of suspects detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersin. Twelve suspects were caught by the police on Monday.Because taking over a chemical weapons base is just good, honest fun? (Washington Post)
Last week, fighters from a group that the Obama administration has branded a terrorist organization were among rebels who seized the Sheik Suleiman military base near Aleppo, where research on chemical weapons had been conducted.(Israel National News)
Because who can really keep track of all those details anyways? (AP)The Supreme Military Council of the Syrian rebels released on a statement on Tuesday which said that the rebel forces took control of an army missile base in Damascus, in which ten ready-to-launch missiles were found. Some of the missiles, according to the statement, were converted to carry non-conventional warheads.
“During the successful operation, the operatives of the Free Syrian Army found a large number of rockets ready for launching, with enormous destructive capability, and they were very surprised to find missiles that were converted to carry non-conventional warheads and which can be equipped with chemical or biological warheads,” said the statement which was translated by Arab affairs expert Dalit Halevi.
U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.Because EVERYBODY KNOWS only the Syrian Army could possibly use Sarin or Chemical Weapons?
An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.Because the last time the US broke international law (without even accusing anybody of using chemical weapons) it turned out so great? (WSJ)
Spread across the desert here off the Sirte-Waddan road sits one of the biggest threats to Western hopes for Libya: a massive, unguarded weapons depot that is being pillaged daily by anti-Gadhafi military units, hired work crews and any enterprising individual who has the right vehicle and chooses to make the trip... inside crates stacked to the 15-foot ceiling... are dozens of sealed cases labeled “warhead.” Artillery rounds designed to carry chemical weapons are stashed in the back of another.(Fox News)
Rep. Mike Rogers, R.-Mich., who said he saw a chemical weapon stockpile in [Libya] during a 2004 trip. At the time, he said the U.S. was concerned about “thousands of pounds of very active mustard gas.” He also said there is some sarin gas that is unaccounted for.(Telegraph)
The head of [Spanish] National Police counter-terrorist intelligence, Commissioner-General Enrique Baron, told a strategic security conference in Barcelona that it was believed that the self-styled Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb – AQMI – could have acquired such arms in Libya or elsewhere during the Arab Spring last year.
Abdulhakim Belhadj, head of the Tripoli Military Council and the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, “met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey,” said a military official working with Mr Belhadj. “Mustafa Abdul Jalil (the interim Libyan president) sent him there.”(Telegraph)
Syrian rebels held secret talks with Libya’s new authorities on Friday, aiming to secure weapons and money for their insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, The Daily Telegraph has learned. At the meeting, which was held in Istanbul and included Turkish officials, the Syrians requested “assistance” from the Libyan representatives and were offered arms, and potentially volunteers. “There is something being planned to send weapons and even Libyan fighters to Syria,” said a Libyan source, speaking on condition of anonymity. “There is a military intervention on the way. Within a few weeks you will see.”
Why any reasonable person would not at minimum want to see the results of all investigations before taking serious measures is just baffling, and baffling why anybody not interested in that can possibly be seen as a reasonable actor to get involved. The US disparaged the Syrian government as long as it didn't cooperate with investigations in previous attacks, possibly paranoid they may be in league with the countries funding the rebels and jihadis and only interested in manufacturing a justification for more intervention as the US now appears to be. Once UN investigations are approved, the US is instantly not interested, and is happy to instantly begin war plans.
You have many many more countries including Germany and Russia and India and Italy (Italy's constitution bars aggressive war outside of UN mandate) who state that with solid confirmation i.e. proof of what happened and who exactly did it, they may in fact involve themselves in and back up some UN-sponsored response... Although as Chemical Weapon treaties don't happen to specify "The US begins illegal aggressive war" is the response to any violation, what the consensus response via a UN process would be may not be to the liking of the "Axis of Freedom" US/France/Saudi/Turks/Israel. But the US and (rebel-arming) friends are clearly so wedded to the war escalation that they simply blow off any accomodation to that process, even if it would bring on board the majority of the world and the UN. The clear fixation on following thru with their war plans once again detracts from the idea that the US and France and Turkey's proposed war is merely the clearly justified outcome of a usage of chemical weapons,
There is really a whole range of scenarios, including unauthorized/rogue/accidental use of chemicals by particular Syrian Army units, which would normally suggest that only the actual parties who decided to commit the act are responsible (a theory which the US seems comfortable with in evading responsibility at top levels for POW torture that was revealed thru leaks). Within the US' theory that only the Syrian Army could have done this, the US even seems to find plausible the idea that it was some rogue, unauthorized action... Yet, the US has not even requested that Syria prosecute or extradite to the Hague any specific officers... Why bother, when the US can rely on the secret, invisible rule "The US can start an illegal war of aggression when it declares that it's secret evidence shows usage of chemical weapons*" and go straight to discussing exactly how many hundreds of cruise missiles, how many non-chemical weapon related sites will be bombarded, whether they will use all force to over-throw Assad or not. Of course.
* Except remember, they did pretty much the same thing in Libya, when no chemical weapon allegations ever occurred... funny.
I read on another thread that my dear friend the Goblin wished to discuss this issue, so here we go.
Talking points:
1. Should President Obama have committed forces without consulting Congress, such has been done in most conflicts since World War II?
No.
Interestingly enough, only the "Libyan Intervention" of late March 2011 was not approved / sanctioned by Congress. According to wikipedia.
2. Should the United States intervene on the basis of the alleged use of Chemical Weapons?
No.
The United States are not astride any moral high horse from which to base action upon without United Nations approval. The Federal government has done much worse to its own citizens since World War 2.
3. Does the lack of international support impact the validity of United States' pending intervention?
Yes.
More importantly, as things presently stand, the apparent public opinion of the American public is strongly against taking any action in Syria. Any Congresscritter that goes against his constituencies' opinion on this matter stands a good chance of committing political suicide.
The United States are not in imminent danger of attack, nor are any citizens endangered by Syria.
The DOD, last year estimated 75,000+ soldiers would be required to properly secure Syria's chemical weapons. No word on whether or not this figure accounted for the probable involvement of Iranian elements. No word on accounting for Syria's one known bio-weapons facility either.
None of what the Administration and Senate have discussed to the public, that I have come across, have begun to adequately address the very real concerns of
- Israel's involuntary involvement;
- Iran's probably very violent reactions;
- Russia's drawing a line in the sand with us;
- China's possible reactions; or
- The League of Arab Nations.
More fun articles:
How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
Iran-Contra Redux? Prince Bandar Heads Secret Saudi-CIA Effort to Aid Syrian Rebels, Topple Assad (This one's for you, Comrade Nicos)
And, really fun stuff:
Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?
and
The provenance of Mint Press News
Who knows? Not me!
EDIT: Oh yeah, for shiznits and giggles, the latest episode of Crash Course.
Unbiased Slogans
** spoiler omitted **
More a general annoyance, not something solely to your linked articles... but too many articles on the internet are relying on key information to be backed up by following a link embedded in the text. It's starting to piss me off. They'll make a vague reference, of which I have no clue as to the precise nature of what they're referring and give me a link. Which will be an article which makes references with embedded links.
If the information is crucial to your argument as a writer, just lay out the f!&$ing evidence. It's bad writing.
The Garreth Porter piece is interesting and he's a good journalist, but he's too dismissive of sources of information based merely on their nationality, because he doesn't agree with their politics.
Spanky: When you intervene in a country, at least some, probably most of the political infrastructure there will be destroyed. Bombings will destroy factories and such. People will die (unless the intervening people start using the surgical strikes they talk about), others will be traumatized, others will be wounded... And shit will fly. When the dust settles, the country will be dirt poor without a functioning political system. If the intervening forces then just up and leave, or worse, put up treaties that costs the country resources, well, that is exactly the situation where unhealthy politics happen. And it has happened time and time again now. Nobody doubts the US willingness to spend uncountable billions to intervene... But why, if they want a democratic development in the world, don't they provide resources for that country to start rebuilding efficiently? Because that would be giving away money? It doesn't much matter why, the fact today is that they don't do it, and as a consequence, shouldn't intervene.
I agree with you that the unlimited war reparations was an indescribably bad idea. To blame Princip, though... Yeah, I guess I just don't understand.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides chemical weapons, the rationale why the US should support violent civil conflict is that so many people are dying...
Indeed, 110,000 people are supposed to have died in course of the conflict
(this is roughly 1/6 the of deaths in the US Civil War, or proportionately 1/3 if you account for Syria so far lasting half as long as the US Civil War. if you adjust for Syria now having 2/3 the population of America at time of US Civil War, the Syrian Civil War has been 1/4 as deadly so far, or 1/2 as deadly accounting for it only lasting half the time so far).
But the main-stream tendency seems to assume Assad's regime murdered all those people, so we must stop him, and enabling the rebels might be a good way to do that.
That sort of perspective is in line with US Senators like McCain smiling for photo-ops with rebels who personally are known kidnappers of innocent civilians.
Far from that picture, the rebel-friendly 'Syrian Observatory for Human Rights' clearly states that of those deaths, 45,649 are regime soldiers and militia.
They identify 21,850 rebel/jihadis as dying, and 40,186 civilians as dying, although rebel sources have a habit of only announcing civilian deaths,
which would strangely suggest that the Syrian Army nearly never kills any rebels. In any case, a good number of those civilians
are certainly killed by the rebels/jihadis themselves, so even if you only believe 1/3 of civilians to be killed by rebels (and all of them to be actual civilians)
(and it is not clear why one should assume rebels are not responsible for at least half, from their own reckless mortaring along with horrors like dismembering innocent civilians)
that means the rebels are responsible for the majority (53%) of deaths that have occurred, so it is far from just a one-sided massacre.
Incidentally, the illegal Libya War was justified not on any chemical weapons, but just on the deaths that had occured.
As it happens, the actual deaths were vastly exaggerated... At one point figures from 25-50,000 deaths were reported,
but as it turns out, only 4,700 people were killed and 2,100 went missing, and that includes government soldiers and rebels.
(that also includes all the deaths that occured AFTER NATO intervention, so pre-intervention it was even less)
Meanwhile, the NATO attack coalition (UAE also joined in, yay Axis of Freedom!)
consistently downplayed civilian deaths as a result of their attacks, consistent with all US wars.
Khadaffi's Libya was likewise a country that was lauded as reformist and very cooperative with the west up until the tied shifted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The US policy so far (and France, Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, the Axis of Freedom) has simply not prioritized a peaceful political outcome,
they have been smuggling arms, jihadi warriors from libya, iraq, parts of russia like chechnya, and other regions,
as well as supporting the rebels with military training camps, as well as allowing rebels use of safe havens in turkey and jordan,
for logistics and training (often refugees press-ganged to join up), allowed to come and go and return to battle as they please.
The "Axis of Freedom" approach seems to be check in every 6 months, and if the rebels aren't winning or at least "not losing"
(since having the two sides fight each other to the bloody end is a convenient low-risk scenario)
they will decide to escalate the arms shipments to more powerful weapons, most recently suggesting providing "Stinger" SAMs.
(of note: only the rebels have threatened to shoot down civilian airliners.)
Said arms-provider countries have been rather more stingy in regards to allowing actual civilian refugees to take refuge,
and billions of dollars seem to have been provided for arms and provision of rebels while resources for refugees are lacking.
There is nothing to like about the Assad government, and anybody had dozens of good reasons to protest against it and try to change the government.
That doesn't justify backing violent groups just because they may declare Assad their enemy.
The US claims to distinguish 'moderate' or 'good' rebels from 'bad' ones aside, yet the 'moderate' ones in fact fully cooperate with and provide arms to the 'bad' ones.
The Assad government is FAAAR from good, but that doesn't mean a peaceful political agreement can't be found if the backers of violent groups withdraw from their proxy war gambit.
That agreement may not be 'perfect' for alot of people, but it can stop the killing and allow Syrians to return to normal lives,
and 'human rights' backing countries can promote human rights AT LEAST how they do in many other repressive countries
that don't happen to be targetted with war measures because they play along well with relevant powers.
Claiming that violent civil war is preferable to the previous status quo of authoritarian corrupt society just falls flat
when one looks at the US' 'allies' in the region backing this war: Saudi Arabia and Qatar, along with Turkey.
Bahrain, with Saudi troops, has and continues to brutally suppress opposition to the undemocratic regime,
also happening to coincide to some extent with a popular majority of a sect estranged and repressed by the elite. But that's "stability".
Turkey, which supposedly bases it's position on human rights, of course has a rather poor human rights record itself,
such as making it illegal to 'insult the nation' by discussing it's history of genocide vs Armenians and other groups.
The US which claims to be human rights champion is happy to facilitate such an attitude, recently appointing as State Dept spokesman
somebody who was in fact FIRED from his job as editor at the LA Times because he suppressed articles covering the Armenian Genocide recognition movement
solely because the author was of Armenian descent, claiming that was a 'conflict of interest', meanwhile Turkish officials were on record boasting of their 'special relationship' with this guy.
Turkey meanwhile interferes with the peace process for Nagorno Karabakh, smiles when it's Azeri buddies threaten to shoot down civilian airliners, and buzzes populated Greek islands with armed fighter jets. Love the stability. Love the human rights.
Strangely enough those countries, and the 'western world' were happy to do business with Syria and Assad before the civil war broke out,
and articles playing up the "reformist" qualities of Assad were wholly common (just as they were for Libya, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, etc).
Besides all this, there is just the question of what happens next, for Syria and the region.
Letting the flames of sectarian conflict burn would just be threatening similar conflicts from Lebanon to Iraq to Saudi Arabia.
Indeed Turkey which is also crucially involved backing the rebels has a persistent ethnic conflict with the Kurds,
who have ended up fighting the islamist fighters who are armed and operating out of turkey as a rear-base,
and any involvement of theirs with a US escalation that is desparate for 'partners'
would almost certainly lead to directly escalating conflict with the Kurds.
And ultimately, considering the forecast for outcome of this war, I don't see how it's really productive even for cold-hearted imperialists.
The policies and alignment of the US' chosen allies in the region are just blatantly unsustainable not to mention destructive.
Saudis and friends can arm and play off one group against the other, trying to avoid them getting actually powerful enough to stand on their own and threaten the Sheikhs,
but eventually they will make enough errors that build up and the feedback will be more than they bargained for.
The Saudis can pay for all the costs of an American war like mafia mercenaries,
but that doesn't address the long term implications for the US or anybody.
This reality clearly seems to register on the Germans, who even with their experience backing the Croatians, and providing Israel with arms,
simply has to see that this violent game isn't going anywhere good, and instead of using every means possible to avoid that game ending,
it is more productive to allow the transition to a more stable regional system to emerge.
If anything, and regardless of whether the US goes ahead with it's war or not, the US' behavior has only hilighted the reliable principles in Russia's conduct and the convergence of opinion between Russia and Germany and most of the EU, as well as enhancing Russian standing in the region, whether or not they stand up with force to prevent an illegal attack on Syria... the US coalition has been showed to be hollow, and Russia on the side of most of the world and the UN/int'l law.
(a 'special cargo' is now on it's way from Russia to Syria by ship, air defense upgrade? but even if the US wipes out Assad it will only send the message that countries should buy air defense systems early and profusely, as well as justifying any countries interested in nuclear weapons. North Korea is sitting pretty while pretty much being THE most evil country on the planet.)
Rather than try to exploit Hitler analogies and manipulate sentiment and international law for narrow ends, would it perhaps be better to leave international human rights law pure, so that when a genocide really does call for it, it could be invoked and people still believe in it? Perhaps if international law is not raped completely, it might still have some standing to help prevent some future war... certainly given that the US' world power can only decline vs. upcoming countries and regions, why not establish good will by playing by the rules, so there is a chance others will do so down the road?
There's just so many reasons against this, specific to Syria, the Middle East, or even pertaining to bigger issues, that don't even require one oppose a cold-hearted US global power structure on merit, that I actually feel there is a good chance it can be defeated. Certainly to draw the process back into the UN and evidence-based approach would reassure many more people and countries around the globe. I'm writing to Representatives and Senators to emphasize that we need to block aggression completely, given the US has already been involved in fueling the conflict. Pre-emptively stopping Contra style secret wars, and actually neutralizing the violence and bringing it to a negotaited conclusion without 'ensuring' one side is stronger first is what's needed.
|
So, we do nothing and wait for the smoke to clear so that we can salute the victor ?
And then we congratulate ourselves on our collective wisdom ?
And if there indeed was anything akin to genocide, we will pursue the guilty people on condition they lost the war ? No matter that we could have done something to prevent it or, at least, reduce the number of victims.
I for one think Rwanda should have taught us a few things about the value of "non-intervention".
The way it is currently going, Assad will go down, after killing thousands of Syrians and the Syrian people will remember that the warlike jyhadists liberated them when the corrupt western democracies did nothing but debate while innocents died.
Can someone please tell me why this result should be supported ?
More a general annoyance, not something solely to your linked articles... but too many articles on the internet are relying on key information to be backed up by following a link embedded in the text. It's starting to piss me off. They'll make a vague reference, of which I have no clue as to the precise nature of what they're referring and give me a link. Which will be an article which makes references with embedded links.If the information is crucial to your argument as a writer, just lay out the f%++ing evidence. It's bad writing.
The Garreth Porter piece is interesting and he's a good journalist, but he's too dismissive of sources of information based merely on their nationality, because he doesn't agree with their politics.
Well, I just woke up and am about to go out the door to peddle socialist newspapers at Worcester Pride (it's the weekend, after all, and I am on the clock), but quickly scanning the Porter piece again, all of the links that I am seeing ar souces. "In blah blah blah article, blah blah blah said XXXX" where XXX is a link to the article where blah blah blah said blah blah blah. I guess you're going to have to give examples.
As for dismissing claims because they come from a particular nationality, I assume you mean the alleged Israeli claims. My reading says that Porter isn't dismissing them because they come from Israel, he is reporting that the former British Ambassador believes they are fraudulent. He then goes on to write:
"But even if the intercept is authentic, the description of it in the intelligence summary appears to be misleading. Another description of the same intercept leaked to The Cable by an administration official suggests that the summary’s description is extremely tendentious."
That doesn't sound like dismissing information based merely on their nationality because he doesn't agree with their politics, but perhaps you had another example in mind.
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)
The original radical thinkers of the U.S. always know how to party. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)The original radical thinkers of the U.S. always know how to party. ;)
My Grandad was a Royal Arch Freemason and he never got up to anything like that.
So far as I know...
There, there, gobbo. Can't win them all. In related news, apparently the police busted a drug-fueled sex orgy at a Freemasons' place somewhere. =)The original radical thinkers of the U.S. always know how to party. ;)My Grandad was a Royal Arch Freemason and he never got up to anything like that.
So far as I know...
What happens in the Lodge, stays in the Lodge. ;)
|
|
The way it is currently going, Assad will go down, after killing thousands of Syrians and the Syrian people will remember that the warlike jyhadists liberated them when the corrupt western democracies did nothing but debate while innocents died.
Can someone please tell me why this result should be supported ?
Currently there are only two possible end results of the Syrian civil war. Assad wins, or the jihadists win. Those results will happen whether there is intervention or not. There isn't a decent side to support, nor is there even a 'at least not as bad as the other side' group to support either. If intervention would have a chance of making things better for Syria I'd be more willing to support it, but all it would do is tilt things towards a what will be a brutal and repressive regime when the dust settles. The best thing we can do is to help refugees get out.
What we should have done earlier is help the pro-democracy rebels organize and arm themselves so that they would be at least possible contenders for the leadership of the rebellion against the jyhadists.
And every second we spend without acting is weakening their position even further :-(
|
|
Or you know, glass the country and then take their oil...
Shoot, Hama musta read the secret mission briefing. Send a cleanup crew to his house and link him to,....ummmm, terrorists of some sort....whoever we don't like. Find people who don't like him much or were suspicious of him and slur his name a bit too...
|
Or you know, glass the country and then take their oil...Shoot, Hama musta read the secret mission briefing. Send a cleanup crew to his house and link him to,....ummmm, terrorists of some sort....whoever we don't like. Find people who don't like him much or were suspicious of him and slur his name a bit too...
Noooooo! Chu never catch me!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
US Military is growing Tired of being governed by Civilians
Lets talk about the impending US Military Coup...
Hmm, Citizen Quandary's posts are very dense, but they seem to be worth going through...
|
|
US Military is growing Tired of being governed by Civilians
Lets talk about the impending US Military Coup...
Well, as long as they actually stop lunacy of this kind, it might not be a bad idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, Citizen Quandary's posts are very dense, but they seem to be worth going through...
I hope they are :-)
I'm aware it can be quite a wall of text, but I think it's rather important to point out the gap between the assumptions pushed by the mainstream media, and the actual body of evidence. I actually cut out sections that were straying too much (like history of US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo that conflict with mainstream understanding). I was careful to cite as mainstream and reliable as sources as I could find because that just removes one element of doubt (vs. citing 'antiwarf*ckthesystem.org').I don't really care if anybody makes exactly the same conclusions from that as me, but the REALITY is just not reflected in the fantasy story peddled by the mainstream media (who is largely mirroring the coverage of the arabic yellow press funded by Saudi/Qatar/etc). My conclusion was not there is SOLID PROOF the rebels did the latest alleged attack in Damascus, but that there is no conclusive evidence for either side. Regardless of the response one believes should occur IF a chemical weapon attack is proven to be used, it only makes sense to make an accurate informed assesment first.
Nowhere in the mainstream narrative do you find even a hint of the idea that there would ever be a reason to "intervene" against the rebels no matter what atrocity they might commit. Certainly if the rebels did use chemical weapons, it should be treated as seriously as if the government did, right? Yet the US shrugs off any reports of that like it doesn't matter. Likewise, it is rare to find any perspective which calls into question that the moral choice here is not just starting now with an alleged chemical weapons attack, but actually started with the covert arming of violent groups in league with Saudis, Qatar, France, etc.
Compare to the mainstream reaction to violent repression of non-violent (or rocks and bottle-thrower) protesters in Bahrain, which gets a perfunctory "We encourage good human rights practices" and another shipment of repressive arms to the Bahraini regime. Where exactly is the US violently intervening to protect human rights that CONFLICTS with the interests of the repressive, corrupt regimes of Saudis, Qatar, Jordan, Israel? At a certain point doesn't humanitarian motives become implausible when they are only used so selectively?
What we should have done earlier is help the pro-democracy rebels organize and arm themselves so that they would be at least possible contenders for the leadership of the rebellion against the jyhadists.
Pro democracy rebels? Who are they? I haven't noticed any.
The US can only claim to differentiate by saying "Well we think these specific guys aren't Al-Qaeda".If the West is opposed to Al-Qaeda groups in Syria, why isn't it bombing them like they do in Somalia or Yemen? They are kidnapping, car bombing, decapitating and dismembering civilians, isn't that "bad" enough to count by the US' standards? Yet zero evidence or inclination to do anything against them, or even impede them. The US claims to distinguish "good" from "bad" rebels, yet the groups are fully cooperative, "good" groups in fact sell weapons to "bad" ones. Last I checked, providing money or weapons to somebody that then arms a terrorist is supposed to be illegal under US law, then that's exactly what the US itself has been doing. Turkey is arming Islamist groups who are fighting the neutral Kurds in Syria. Should we really give more political cover for that?
(most of Syrian Kurdish groups do not seem to be pushing for a separatist state per se, their perspective seems to be that a more federalized and egalitarian Syria with allowance for their identity is full acceptable, and that scenario is compatable with continuity with the current Syrian state)
It's noticeable that the US and other members of the Axis of Freedom like Turkey, Saudis, Qatar (and "Armed Islamic Fighting Group" of Libya and "Al-Nusra" of Iraq, i.e. Al-Qaeda) who have backed 'rebels' (and foreign friends) have NEVER given support to non-violent democracy activists who rejected armed conflict in alliance with jihadis. This is a sector of Syrian society which is simply not heard of in mainstream Western press, certainly because they are critical of the violent rebel groups.
So, we do nothing and wait for the smoke to clear so that we can salute the victor ?
And then we congratulate ourselves on our collective wisdom ?
Or support a peace process seriously, instead of arming rebel groups continuously, giving them every reason to think that continuing the war is viable and in their interests? Or is Afghanistan and Libya just such great examples we must repeat again?
And if there indeed was anything akin to genocide, we will pursue the guilty people on condition they lost the war ? No matter that we could have done something to prevent it or, at least, reduce the number of victims.
The only groups speaking of genocidal acts are rebels. Although one might not notice, this is not actually a fight between groups, but between political perspectives. The Assad regime has plenty of Sunni members and backers and the Army does as well. Syria has some oil but it not especially rich in that regard. If you consider the narrow selfish interests of a corrupt elite who wishes to extract wealth from the population, genociding 60% of the country is not conducive to that goal, because they are depending on extracting wealth created by the people, which includes Sunni. The Syrian regime imposed a secular government on a patchwork of sects, previously groups like Alawites were horribly oppressed and marginalized, but flourished in a secular regime (the Baath regime was not actually begun by Alawites, although they came to prominence under it... a pattern which commonly occurs with minority ethnic groups in any secular non-racist country). The Baath regime should not be equated as some "Alawite supremacist" regime, Alawites have in fact played major roles in OPPOSITION to the Baath regime over the years, e.g. in leftist liberation groups. Likewise, the conflation of the Baath regime with Shia Hezbollah is a joke, the Syrian Army FOUGHT Hezbollah when Hezbollah first came into existence in Lebanon.
I for one think Rwanda should have taught us a few things about the value of "non-intervention". The way it is currently going, Assad will go down, after killing thousands of Syrians and the Syrian people will remember that the warlike jyhadists liberated them when the corrupt western democracies did nothing but debate while innocents died.
Are you kidding? Assad has turned the tide, and the war has been going his way for quite a while. This is why the "Axis of Freedom" has been escalating weapons deliveries, because if they don't, they believe the rebels will lose. It seems clear that you're strongly believing the narrative pushed by the mainstream media on this, which you're free to do, but shouldn't it matter whether which perspective has been born out as true by actual developments?
Assad's narrative that the violent rebellion was from the beginning involving outside influence backing violent groups was derided as lies by the mainstream press, but this has been held up to be true. The mainstream press claimed that armed rebels were secular liberals, when nobody can claim this anymore, there is no armed faction with that political perspective, the distinction is between Al-Qaeda Theocratic Fanatics and non-Theocratic Sectarian Tribalists (Syrian secular democrats do indeed exist, and reject both the rebels and regime). The rebels and their mainstream press cheerleaders would claim that the rebels were on the verge of total victory on a weekly basis, yet that didn't come to pass.
At a certain point, doesn't one's record have an effect on your credibility? Rebels have claimed THOUSANDS of instances of chemical weapons use, they have claimed the Assad regime ripped babies from incubators (repeating Gulf War 1 false propaganda), they have fraudulently used photos from Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere as 'proof' of the regime's crimes. These groups quite simply do not espouse morals of universal human rights they lie and kill and will take whatever backing they can acquire.
Machiavellian global power masters at one point thought it was a good idea to fund the Mujahedin of Afghanistan, but is that model really repeatable indefinitely? I don't think so, even from the perspective of those cold-hearted power masters. Fanning the flames of hate, justifying it by an example of 'success' will only lead to more conflict and death in the middle east, not better human rights. Gulf shiekdoms can distract their subjects' attention with hating some other group for the moment, but eventually that will not suffice, by definition if they are fully succesful there will no longer be anything to focus on there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone from the State Department has just been on the radio specifically denying that the US is aiming at regime change in Syria.
I remember a Minister in the UK Government saying the same thing about Iraq in 2003, which is why I'm inclined to take what she says with a pinch of salt.
And likewise remember the supposed limitation intervention justified by UN Security Council resolution on Libya, which was not supposed to be about regime change. I'm really not sure why the US government's justifications for war are believable by anybody after it's track record, which of course includes lying to begin the Vietnam war with false premise and lying to continue it. The current US regime is even proud of it's lying, of course pointing out it is the "least worse lie" (about NSA spying).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as long as they actually stop lunacy of this kind, it might not be a bad idea.US Military is growing Tired of being governed by Civilians
Lets talk about the impending US Military Coup...
Proving that neither of you can read.
Granted, Hama, you have the excuse that English isn't your first language.
Nah i just rolled with what yellowdingo said. I am fully aware that military unrest in that article means that soldiers no longer want to go die on some unknown country in a pointless war that means nothing to them. I completely understand the sentiment. Those people are patriots. They love the United States and want to protect it. They don't want to be sent to some sandblasted rock to shoot at people that did nothing wrong to them, just on the pretense that they might. They are living, breathing people of flesh and blood. Not pawns.
US Military is growing Tired of being governed by Civilians
Lets talk about the impending US Military Coup...
In other news...
Old man is cranky
Kids are on lawn
Next generation full of nothing but morons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congressional Black Caucus Pressed To Stay Quiet On Syria
As the Obama administration lobbies Congress this week to authorize military strikes on Syria, the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus has asked caucus members to refrain from discussing the Syria debate in public.
US Congress speaker refuses to meet Russian delegation
[Senate Majority Leader] Reid refuses to meet Russia delegation on SyriaThe speaker of the US House of Representatives has turned down a proposal to meet with Russian MPs to discuss the situation in Syria. The Duma members plan to visit Washington next week to persuade their American counterparts not to attack Syria.
“By rejecting this dialogue the U.S. Congress shows that it is afraid of demonstrating the illegitimacy of its position towards Syria,” said State Duma Vice-Speaker Sergei Zheleznyak (United Russia) on Thursday.