Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Garrincha on August 31, 2013, 07:11 pm
-
Given that it's the worlds' biggest topic ATM, what are SR users views on possible military intervention? I personally think intervention is long overdue. It's not like Iraq, where there was fabricated evidence, implying Saddam had WMD. That was utterly wrong IMO. In this case, we have actually witnessed WMD being used on innocent civilians, so there is surely a strong case to punish Assad for his brutality and disregard for human life. The UK is still hungover by the Iraq farce, hence the scepticism of so many MPs, but I have (unusual) sympathy for Cameron. As with Libya, and unlike Iraq, there is a compelling humanitarian argument to be made for military intervention. I'm not saying the rebels are angels (particularly the Islamists), but the war started because Assad sought to quell peaceful protest for reform by shooting and bombing them. Hence, he is the real architect of the situation, and has got away with the same things that compelled military action against Gadaffi in Libya. That's my 2 cents worth anyway. What do you guys think?
-
I think interfering in Syria is completely retarded.
There is no effective opposition in Syria ready to step up and take command of the government. The rebels are being led and funded by Jihadi fighters trained under Al-Quieda or other terrorist groups and are engaging in brutal tactics like suicide bombings and cannibalism of bodies.
If Assad is removed from power the country's flimsy economy will tank and the entire nation will simply dissolve into tribal groups fighting each other while implementing strict Sharia law.
America already has enough countries in the Middle East that hate them and they have a bad track record when it comes to any involvement in Middle Eastern affairs (just look Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/etc). The American economy is fucked because of their military spending and this is the last thing they need.
A missile strike won't do shit against Assad. He will still have chemical weapons and can still do whatever he likes to the civilian population, unless they put boots on the ground they will just make the situation worse and put themselves even more at odds with Russia, China and most of Europe.
America needs to stop trying to be the fucking world police and sort out their own problems rather than these pathetic displays of military might that are both ineffective and counter-productive to their relations with the rest of the world. If you are going to attack Syria on moral grounds, then why not North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Liberia? Congo? Several dozen other American allies that commit human rights abuses? Obama just doesn't want to look indecisive after his 'Red Line' statement and he doesn't give a shit who he hurts while he trys to save face. Fuck off Obama and fix your own country.
-
I certainly agree with you vis-a-vis American interference around the world. Its been happening for decades, all over the world. But there is, IMO, such a thing as a "just war". Afghanistan was vaguely justifiable, in that the Taliban would not hand over Bin Laden after 9/11, although I was against it. Iraq never was a case, and i'm still amazed how many intelligent people got sucked into the whole yearning for war that the neo-cons managed to drum up, aided by their puppet Dubya, and his puppet Blair. But I believe the Libyan intervention was necessary, otherwise Gaddafi would have massacred the whole of Benghazi. And Assad is similarly mentally unstable, and actually HAS WMD and is using them on his own people! So Obama is in a very tough position. He doesn't really want to intervene, but he knows he has to because of his previous statements.
I know it's bizarre for America suddenly to be fighting on the same side as Al-Qaeda, but the Middle East is a complex place. Anyway, Al-Qaeda only became involved several months into the rebellion. It was firstly peaceful protesters being shot and bombed by Assad, and the first rebel militant groups, like the FSA, were secular and in favour of democracy.
-
100% with AussieMitch on this one.
Exporting freedom and democracy to the Middle East simply doesn't work and usually results in the situation deteriorating even more.
The way to democracy is messy, you cannot "incubate" democracy somewhere else on the world and then force-inseminate a country with it, it has never worked. Particularly the US have tried it over and over and over always with the same or similar disastrous outcome.
-
The situation is a shitty one. But let's also look at the shitty situation in Washington D.C.. Republicans want absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama supports, they literally vote no on everything... UNTIL it's a war. Then they not only support Obama but claim limited strikes "aren't enough" and want to drive us even further into war and into debt. Then they'll claim we spend too much and need to deal with our debt in the next election cycle while blaming the Democrats, even though our military spending is already absurdly disproportional to the rest of the world.
Let's follow that money. War means big money to the military industrial complex... companies that heavily fund the campaigns of whoever they see as the biggest war mongerer. Money spent on war also means less money for programs that the President might support, which is not a coincidence. A common strategy of the Republican party in the past few decades has literally been to bankrupt us in order to get their policy changes forced onto the table, since they can't do it any other way.
Meanwhile we're still in a recession and still have high unemployment, we're pummeling our own nation's livelihood with the budget sequestration and mass surveillance ops, while the public's trust in government crumbles.
So I think the situation is tragic but we are essentially asking future generations if it's OK to rob them to pay for our actions. That's fucked up, too.
There is a line that could be crossed where I think most people would agree that it would be imperative for us to intervene. Like if we found concentration camps and there was mass genocide going on. But a civil war that involves the blatant disregard for civilian casualties is not something I would rank next to that. It's sad but the moment we go into another country, more people will hate America, no matter how sound our logic is, no matter how right we think we are. Future generations will be left to deal with that as well.
-
<begin rant>
To be honest I don't know what these idiots are doing banging the war drums again.
Firstly what evidence is there that Assad carried out this attack (not saying he didn't, but I won't condemn him just because the US says he is guilty). Those taliban in syria (many of whom are European citizens may I add), would carry out this themselves just to get western support to overthrough assad before they set up there Jihadist state, even if it involves killing there own.
Also what the flip are we doing siding with Al Qaeda against a secular regime? Last time I checked the US said they would attack AQ and all there allies, now they are on the same side, the irony. They helped overthrow gadaffi, and the libyans thanked them by burning there ambassador alive in Benghazi. Wait till they have to deal with the AQ branch in Syria which they are helping to install.
The reasons are always different, but the reality is always control of oil. First excuse was exporting democracy, bullshit. If that's the case why does the west bitch about the democratically elected Hamas government. Then it was WMD's in Iraq. BS proved again. Now it is chemical weapons, IIRC a few months ago there was a chemical attack to, and the UN represetative (some woman, if anyone remembers please post) said the rebels did it, that quickly dissappeared off the airwaves. Also if this is to protect civilians and promote democracy and human rights why are we supporting regimes such as Bahrain? Why? Because they sell us oil and host our millitary bases.
Also many muslims see these things as reasons to attack the west. The 7/7 bombers used Iraq as the motivation for bombing the london underground. So everytime our leaders pull this shit extreme muslims thank us by murdering our civilians en mass. I think its time to stay the flip out and leave them to it.
Also I think this chemical weapons is BS to. It is just as inhumane to kill people by bombing them conventionally.
My 2 cents anyway - ignore the propoganda the BBC/sky are feeding you, they are just softening you up for war. There are many evil things all over the world we ignore/support, so why are these chumps chasing Assad - because he doesn't tow the line.
</begin rant>
-
I like how kerry mentioned the 450 children killed...How many Afghanistan children have been murdered or injured by drone strikes..cock suckers don't wanna let that shit be known do they? I hate how we Americans think we're such hot shit. It makes me sick to my stomach.
-
Its not just the American regime, I am fed up with the war mongering by the British cabinet, I am so glad Parliament gave Cameron a black eye. Hopefully the UK will stop being Americas little bitch and always saying yes sir no sir. Seems like France has taken to licking America's butt hole now.
Funny how everyone has such short memories that they forget all this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/uns-carla-del-ponte-says-there-is-evidence-rebels-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html
It only happened in May, was brushed under the carpet then to, now the media don't mention it at all. There is definately a concerted effort to soften up the public for war. I hope congress open there eyes and restrain Obama from his blood lust, the irony of him being a nobel peace prize winner isn't lost on me.
-
That is like asking choose, Hitler or Stalin. One on side you have an oppressive brutal civilian killing dictatorship and on the other side you have an oppressive brutal civilian killing al Queda. The good honest people are mixed between the two camps. So who do we drop our 5,000lb bombs on then? No one. Let them duke it out and hopefully the lesser of two evils (whichever that one is) wins.
-
That is like asking choose, Hitler or Stalin. One on side you have an oppressive brutal civilian killing dictatorship and on the other side you have an oppressive brutal civilian killing al Queda. The good honest people are mixed between the two camps. So who do we drop our 5,000lb bombs on then? No one. Let them duke it out and hopefully the lesser of two evils (whichever that one is) wins.
If you're in the U.S. it is not one man...it is a bunch of extremely rich man, trying to do what's good for them. That....is a bully. Which I not against bullies. But, they have to know their own limit.
-
Syria is a complex issue, there are compelling arguments on both sides of this debate. Should we let a government unleash its military power upon its people or should we intervene - which could possibly clear the way for an anti-western regime to form? In this context the enemy of our enemy is definitely not our friend.
IMO we should probably intervene, though I recognise the strong arguments aguments against this position, I believe that if a government needs to gun down civilians to retain power we are justified in intervening - pretty sure thats mentioned somewhere in the UN as a justification for war.
(my two cents)
-
I believe that if a government needs to gun down civilians to retain power we are justified in intervening - pretty sure thats mentioned somewhere in the UN as a justification for war.
Then the West should also intervene in Bahrain and overthrow the regime there, wouldn't be that hard, the US already has a huge naval base there.
-
as an American and having lived through the friends i lost in the first gulf war in 90 and 91, then the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by Bush in the 2000's, again losing more friends that were in the military .. and for what? nothing gained in either of those 2 places for America all we have are more dead soldiers and almost trillions of dollars spent on wars that gave us nothing in return.. just more fucked up foreign policy, bad intelligence and an itchy trigger to want to spread "democracy" around the world to these middle eastern countries that we think we are going to gain something in return.
that's kind of what we've been doing post WW2 is trying to stop the spread of communism, we first over threw the prime minister of Iran in 1953, then again we fucked up and started another war in vietnam by killing president Ngo Dinh Diem in november 1963 --- (this was confirmed by the CIA) plunging the country into chaos.. in 1964 the attack off the Gulf of Tonkin (again false) forced president Johnson to escalate the war in south east asia...
we supported Saddam in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran, then we supported bin laden again the soviets when they were fighting in afghanistan.. then suddenly both saddam and bin laden are our enemies so we go to war and go after them..
What the fuck? --- we should just mind our own damn business IMHO
-
@Studio54
Amen to that brutha.... +1
-
@Studio54
Amen to that brutha.... +1
At least the British had a mentality that when they take over a country, they become subject to the British crown and all minerals now belong to England. we to places fight and die, and for what? --- im done analyzing this dumb ass policy of being worlds police.
-
im with OP- although there is little hope of fostering democracy- it simple cant be imposed on another country- i personally feel that 1- Syria has been a major supporter of terrorism for decades and will continue to be so and 2- anyone with a conscience should feel ashamed that the situation has gone on for years and although the US and A have the ability to have an impact they are are afraid to do so-i mean did i read that the rebels were asking for gas masks and were refused? really? they are human beings for fucks sake
-
i really couldn't care . if I were drafted I still wouldn't care about the specifics just what I needed to do ( like run across the canadian border to more sensible people). fuck politics, your oppinions are futile.
-
I think it's typical USA. That's about all.
Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, they need another excuse to flex their military might. There is no way the Assad regime used the chemical weapons, there is nothing to gain by giving the international community the green light to take military action. The rebels gassed their own people because they were losing the war and knew the US would respond as they have done.
im with OP- although there is little hope of fostering democracy- it simple cant be imposed on another country- i personally feel that 1- Syria has been a major supporter of terrorism for decades and will continue to be so and 2- anyone with a conscience should feel ashamed that the situation has gone on for years and although the US and A have the ability to have an impact they are are afraid to do so-i mean did i read that the rebels were asking for gas masks and were refused? really? they are human beings for fucks sake
Anyone with a conscience should be ashamed of what the USA did in Afghanistan and Iraq and ashamed when they do the same thing in Syria.
-
Whether you like US foreign policy or not, failure to act sends a message of weakness to Assad's backers....Iran & Russia. They have been strengthened throughout this conflict. For all the West's bullshit, no decent person can accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians with impunity. Obama has handled this very badly. Should have intervened with a no-fly zone and lethal aid to the secular rebels in the beginning.
-
I fully understand the scepticism of those against intervention, and I hate war. The situation is very complex however. Effectively many Middle Eastern countries are governed by dictators, who come from a minority ethnic group. In Assads' case he is an Alawite muslim in a majority Sunni muslim country, and the Alawite elite have brutally suppressed the Syrian people in order to retain this status quo. It is the Wests' fault that this is the case, because when it carved up the Middle East having colonized it, they put minorities in charge in order to protect them against suppression by the majority, which is the root cause of this civil war, against a background of the Shia/Sunni split in Islam.
I agree that Obama and Kerry can be hypocritical at times (Egypt, Bahrain), but in this case, I think they are doing the right thing. Sunni extremists HAVE become involved due to the sectarian nature of the conflict, but so has Hezbollah and Iran, on the other side. The majority of Syrians WANT intervention having seen the true nature of the Assad clan, and surely we have some responsibility toward them on humanitarian grounds.
-
Whether you like US foreign policy or not, failure to act sends a message of weakness to Assad's backers....Iran & Russia. They have been strengthened throughout this conflict. For all the West's bullshit, no decent person can accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians with impunity. Obama has handled this very badly. Should have intervened with a no-fly zone and lethal aid to the secular rebels in the beginning.
This is something the UN needs to handle, not the USA alone. A response is needed, from the world, not the USA. We have no right. This is an international issue (chemical weapons) not an American one. The most we should do until then is provide humanitarian aid if possible.
-
It seems the Lords have out voted Cameron on direct military action, not only is our standing and respect in the eyes of the world being called in to question, but we have Putin sticking the boot in.
Obama is also seeking advice from congress, the people of Britain don't want strikes, as we have seen the futility of this so called intervention in Afghanistan Iraq and many places. We have offered another 52 million in aid to help the refugees. But as far as anything else, not looking like it. now evidence of these catastrophic injuries have been well documented, looking for proof who actually fired first is proving difficult. As decent humans we also cant stand aside and watch people be gassed and slaughtered, France and the USA have already armed the rebels, and in the coming weeks may invade. We have the Russians and |Putin the most staunch ally of Assad, and Iran all backing Assads regime it looks like a full scale standoff. Cameron has assured us our relation ship with America is a strong as ever...I doubt that, you were snubbed at the G20, and then humiliated by your own party. Rocky times ahead.
-
The US government needs another boogeyman to distract the populace from the real and ever increasing problems on the homefront. I dunno who appointed the US to police everybody else and get into everybody else's business. Granted, what happened in Syria was bad, but who says it really was the Syrian government and not some faction within their ranks? One tactic of the CIA is to destablize a target nation, then bring in the regime they want.
-
If you believe we are getting involved for humanitarian reasons you are absolutely delusional. What about all the other genocides going on around the world that we stand around and watch happen? This is purely to destabilize the region and bring in more western control.
Why is it such a big deal that he used "chemical weapons" as opposed to regular weapons??? makes no sense. The US used depleted uranium in Iraq wich has given fallujah a higher rate of cancer and birth defects than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also bombed innocent civillians with white phosphorous.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html
Why would assad use chemical weapons? That's like signing his death certificate. I think its very likely it came form the Saudis or the CIA, as they have been arming the rebels for a long time now. If it weren't for the us giving the rebels weapons this conflict would have lost its steam a looong time ago.
The administration is deceptive about the nature of the conflict and what are involvement has already been. Kerry denied that the rebels are mostly terrorists, which is an absolute lie.
It doesnt matter anyway, obama already hinted that he would intervene even if congress votes no. The US is an unstopable machine controlled by the industrialists who will stop at nothing to bring us more war. Starting to look very clear that their endgame is WW3. Democracy is dead.
The US is the bad guy, not russia/china/iran.
-
What I don't get is what the US hopes to achieve? Another failed state run by al qaeda and co?
They pulled this shit in Libya, ok they got a few contracts out of it, but as I stated before they also got their ambassador burnt alive as a thank you for helping liberate them. There is a massive al qaeda presence in Libya and it has destabilised the whole region. These al qaeda affiliates who are swarming all over Libya have exported there jihad to Niger and Mali and the general region (and we can see what happened in Mali).
Any why do this in Syria, for another few million in contracts? Is it worth it? Having another taliban state on the mediterranean. For all assads faults he wasn't a jihadist and he didn't try and genocide his countries sunni citizens, unlike what some sunni's are now trying to do to the alawhites.
I think this is gonna come back to bite turkey, saudi, israel and the US. The only real benefits I see the US getting is a few more arms sales. I hope these arms lobbyists can sleep well at night. Also this fool Obama, I really thought he would be a change from the typical yankee war mongering but seems he is part of the same BS. He still keeps people without charge at gitmo and heads the only country on earth to have nuked masses of civilians and talks BS about human rights.
seriously i love some stuff about the US but there foreign policy, hypocrisy, CIA, meddling aren't amomgst those things.
-
What I don't get is what the US hopes to achieve? Another failed state run by al qaeda and co?
That and war with iran.
More terrorists running around freely means more chaos and more need for further intervention.
Also syria has the second largest reserve of oil in the region behind iraq.
-
I would not be surprised at all if it was US/France that supplied rebels with the gas in order to blame it on Assad.
They have been itching to take him out for a long time and now that the rebels are starting to lose that may have had no other choice. It's not like the US hasn't done that sort of thing before.
-
Well, lets see, if the us or one of its allies wanted Syrian territory or to gain control of part or all of the region, and they couldn't possibly do it diplomatically, then what better way than to stage an attack and make it look like the Syrian government, Then use the mainstream media to wind up the people and get them used to the idea of how bad Syria is and how the us just has to step in and intervene. Sound familiar? Who in the media is even exploring this concept?
-
Russia and China are opposed solely for the fact that they reserve the rights to butcher their own people in another uprising. China has no qualms about sending tanks into Uighur territory and mowing down protesters. Russia would like to be able to bomb Dagestan into rubble murdering everybody if they try to go independent. If they agree to Syria action then they are signing their own dictatorships away when uprisings take root against Putin's endless terms.
Speaking of Putin, anybody watch the after election power transfer ceremony? It's 20mins of him walking through a gigantic amount of people cheering in full soviet union era political theatre then he simply switches spots with Medvedev. They will repeat this for the next 30 years.
-
The war USA leads has NOTHING to do with protecting the world from so called "terrorists"! Its funded to invade other countries for the following reasons:
1. Oil and other resources which US and the West needs for their own selfish use
2. Opium and cocaine from Afghanistan and South America (CIA imports more Coke than most drug cartels)
3. To add another NWO world bank in a foreign country which wishes to ditch the US dollar which is not worth the paper it's printed on (when was the last time the Fed was audited???)
4. To promote the police/nazi state at home in US and influence other commonwealth countries to do the same, bit by bit your freedom is being stripped away in the name of "keeping you safe"
The above off course is just the tip of the ice berg of why US leads this war. Ask yourself why the fuck would any little country pick a fight with US to start wars???? Its like coming up to a big fat ugly cop with an M16 rifle and spitting him in the face... wtf?
No offence but Americans know the least about the world outside of US and Mexico (many cant point on the map where Syria is) let alone know what happened inside the country. But they seem to want to bomb anything which their government points the finger at! Its like "shoot now, ask questions later".
Wake up people, US government are a fucking disease on this planet and need to be wiped out, This is impossible because the actual roots of this evil reside across the ocean in Europe, Germany and England... fuck the illuminati!
So many scientists and doctors of our century were suppressed due to corporate greed of USA. Cancer can be reversed through diet, SUPPRESSED! Nikola Tesla a Serbian national who was the most amazing genius in our history. Tesla wanted to give the world a free and constant energy to power homes, cars, airplanes and even flying saucers. US government along with illuminati bankers have discredited him and then when he died, STOLE his ideas and plans. Why do you think people talk about UFOs and flying saucers? Tesla already had proven methods how to make flying saucers 100 years ago. The US military stole his ideas and then build it. Just google Henry Makow and Nikola Tesla story.
Tesla alone could have prevented the last 100 years of wars in our world thanks to blood for oil. But no Edison and JP Morgan did not want to follow Tesla's idea of giving free electricity to people. You cant put a meter on free energy!
Instead of building cities on the moon and on other planets we are fighting each other and killing millions all for corporate greed!
FUCK NWO AND ILLUMINATI!
-
seems like another dipshit ploy/false pretense to gain political power and presence in an area rich with fossil fuels and other interests
no different than anything that has happened or will happen
-
My opinion US wants to overthrow government like they do everywhere in the world, but Russia supports Syria so thats the problem. I don't know why they want to do that there's probably some material or political gain.
-
With today's 'false flag' shooting by some alleged disgrunteled ex-military person, America's attention has been purposely diverted away from the story.
Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?
Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course.
Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?
Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.
Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
-
With today's 'false flag' shooting by some alleged disgrunteled ex-military person, America's attention has been purposely diverted away from the story.
Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?
Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course.
Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe. Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?
Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region. On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.
Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
Good analysis, +1