Revolution in the middle east Page 75

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • FWB 31 Aug 2013 20:54:27 44,656 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I still find it weird that Assad would use chemical weapons. Incredibly stupid move on his part if true.
  • Khanivor 31 Aug 2013 20:55:56 40,845 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I read that the day the attack occurred was unusual for the fact the wind was blowing away from the government held areas of the city. If true, I'd call that one hell of a piece of circumstantial evidence all on its own. Coupled with everything else the balance of probability sure seems to point towards Assad.

    At this time, I don't think the US wants to bomb Syria. Hell, going to Congress is, I think, a well-reasoned attempt to get out of it without appearing weak. Obama drew his red line but if it could be proven that it was the rebels then I think the US would have more to gain. No need to attack and you can paint the Islamist fighters in an even worse light, perhaps bring shame on the Shia factions, which is surely more in line with US war aims than bombing some dickhead without a chin.

    So I'm willing to believe that the intelligence is there to support the assertions it was Assad.
  • Khanivor 31 Aug 2013 20:58:08 40,845 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    I still find it weird that Assad would use chemical weapons. Incredibly stupid move on his part if true.
    Not if his reading was that he could get away with it. I doubt its the commentators and internet opinionaters who are the only ones who feel Iraq will act as a brake on US and Western military adventures for many years to come.

    Hell, the man has gotten away with killing tens of thousands of his people over the last couple of years. Who knows quite how rational the mindset in his high command currently is. I wouldn't bet on 'calm and rational'.

    Edited by Khanivor at 20:58:55 31-08-2013
  • Deleted user 31 August 2013 21:43:53
    senso-ji wrote:
    If Congress votes yes and the US go ahead and bomb Syria alongside side the French then Cameron and sections of the British press will be fuming at their lack of involvement. Can't wait to read the front pages the day after it all kicks off.
    I still think that, if the UN report proves positive - assad did use CW weapons, i wouldn't be surprised DC would call another debate and vote. Especially if further CW attacks happen.

    Would love to hear what russia say if it were proved.
  • BernieLentils 31 Aug 2013 21:45:15 44 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Recommend Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation. By no means a definitive history of the West's attempts to harness control of the Middle East, and at 1,000+ pages, by no means brief.

    But when you listen to the rhetoric of Obama today, Kerry the day before, and Cameron the day before that...

    There's no solution. Depressing, but history suggests that's the sad truth.
  • BadMonkey 31 Aug 2013 21:55:33 78 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    My biggest problem with all this is that no-one actually seems to have anything like a plan. If the last decade or more has taught us anything it should be not to go wading into foreign wars without a clear goal, a plan to achieve it and a way to measure whether we've actually achieved that goal. It's all well good disapproving of the use of chemical weapons, but how is a bit of bombing, or drone strikes or whatever going to help the situation?
  • senso-ji 31 Aug 2013 22:04:18 5,921 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The purpose of the military strikes will be to take out any sites that could be used to launch long range missiles into Israel or Turkey should the situation escalate. Obama gave no assurances that this intervention would benefit the Syrian people in the long run. He even admitted it would be a limited and short run campaign.
  • NBZ 31 Aug 2013 22:06:37 2,372 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Turkey and Israel being neighbours, Syria's missiles don't need to be "long range".
  • Khanivor 31 Aug 2013 23:36:36 40,845 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It would be good to hear of some purpose, of what the intentions are. And above all, what plans are being considered for the long haul, what contingencies are anticipated.

    If Iraq taught us one thing is that you can win a campaign but if you aren't ready for the entire war everyone will lose. Poor planning was the cause of so much waste and suffering. To repeat that would be tragic.
  • RedSparrows 31 Aug 2013 23:42:32 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    BernieLentils wrote:
    Recommend Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation. By no means a definitive history of the West's attempts to harness control of the Middle East, and at 1,000+ pages, by no means brief.

    But when you listen to the rhetoric of Obama today, Kerry the day before, and Cameron the day before that...

    There's no solution. Depressing, but history suggests that's the sad truth.
    Solutions don't work in history, as you suggest. But that's not to imply that things can't improve.

    Not at the moment though, obv... ;(
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 09:20:09
    @FWB
    I still find it weird that Assad would use chemical weapons. Incredibly stupid move on his part if true.
    I'm inclined to think that his regime was framed by the rebels, as a last-ditch move to involve the US in the Syrian Civil War. With the entry of Hizbollah on the side of Damascus, along with the unstinting support of Moscow and Tehran for the Syrian regime, the rebels probably realized that they were headed towards defeat unless they did something special.

    Though there is the argument that another country is responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria:

    The Storm Clouds Gather

    This background information demonstrates that the situations in Syria and Iran are regarded by the Israelis as linked to some extent, and it does not take a military genius to work out that if the Americans and Western ‘coalition’ powers can be goaded by Israel into attacking the relatively ‘soft’ target of Syria, this will prompt Iran to intervene on Syria’s behalf and voila! Israel would then have the might of the US military and the militaries of the other Western nations pitched against both Syria and Iran, ‘killing two birds with one stone’.
    At any rate, Europe would be daft to get sucked into this conflict.
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 10:29:46 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I don't buy that at all.

    Not least because of the sheer volume of absolute bollocks anti-Israel stories over the past 10 years.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 10:30:34 01-09-2013
  • Rodney 1 Sep 2013 10:33:24 1,903 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @EndlessSolitude

    If true, Assad didn't try very hard to prove his innocence.

    where has he been lately any way, has he personally made any statement or appeared on TV or anything?
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 10:57:46 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I never get why people who tend to think of the USA/Israel as unrestrained warmongers feel the need to argue that 'false flag' operations are likely, as if these nations need an excuse.
  • senso-ji 1 Sep 2013 13:28:59 5,921 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Iran will not get involved in the conflict no matter how many bombs Israel/USA drop on Syria. They'll hang Assad out to dry and maintain a clear conscience.
  • fletch7100 1 Sep 2013 15:19:28 7,331 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @RedSparrows

    Mainly because both those countries have been caught in "false flag" situations before. Not saying they are the only ones that do this, other countries do this as well. Example check out the Lavon Affair that involved Isarel

    http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/mi-figures-out-what-went-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385

    Edited by fletch7100 at 15:28:04 01-09-2013
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 16:55:50 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    That still doesn't excuse loons bleating on about 'Israel will attack US aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf' and other shite that I've read over the past year.

    Confirmation bias knows no better home.
  • fletch7100 1 Sep 2013 17:06:52 7,331 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @RedSparrows

    Not sayjng it does, you will always get nutjobs on both sides of the argument.

    They mention things like the carrier attack probably after learning about the USS Liberty incident and the conspiracy around that

    Edited by fletch7100 at 17:07:44 01-09-2013
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 17:14:56
    @Rodney

    He's been speaking to the Russians:

    The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It's nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence. And it's one of the most powerful countries that does it – the US. They accused us on Wednesday, and in only two days the American leadership announces they started to collect the evidence.… They accuse our army of using chemical weapons in the area that's reportedly controlled by the terrorists. In fact, there is no precise front line between the army and the insurgents in that area. And how can a government use chemical weapons – or any other weapons of mass destruction – in the area where government troops are concentrated? This is against elementary logic.
  • FWB 1 Sep 2013 17:17:39 44,656 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The Russians should be completely ignored in making our decision here. They are self serving with zero morals. They have utter contempt for their own people. Certainly don't give a shit about those abroad.

    However, evidence does need to be compiled and presented before anything is done. It's ridiculous not to.

    Edited by FWB at 17:18:52 01-09-2013
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 17:54:36 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    EndlessSolitude wrote:
    @Rodney

    He's been speaking to the Russians:

    The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It's nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence. And it's one of the most powerful countries that does it – the US. They accused us on Wednesday, and in only two days the American leadership announces they started to collect the evidence.… They accuse our army of using chemical weapons in the area that's reportedly controlled by the terrorists. In fact, there is no precise front line between the army and the insurgents in that area. And how can a government use chemical weapons – or any other weapons of mass destruction – in the area where government troops are concentrated? This is against elementary logic.
    And so we have the other story.

    Why is this any more or less convincing than the 'US' story?
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 17:58:50 40,845 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Because its vague, imprecise and not once states that they didnt do it, rather that its unfair to accuse them?
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 18:01:38 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    (I was being somewhat rhetorical)

    Russia Today being the English language mouthpiece of the Kremlin, that bastion of democracy, freedom and transparency.

    I can play this game too! woo!
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 18:01:39
    From what I've read, the people of Syria want the US to invade if only to end the problems there. From the 9th on wards, it appears the US will do something, with full backing from the French.

    Edited by blacksea at 18:24:24 01-09-2013
  • FWB 1 Sep 2013 18:03:00 44,656 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You read that on Fox?

    I'm sure some would like it. Sure others don't, and others want weapons from whoever to kill their neighbours.
  • reggy72 1 Sep 2013 18:07:56 285 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    It does seem that the yanks are itching to get involved in Syria, well not the general populous, but the blood lusting industrial military complex that pretty much pulls most of the strings in Washington these days.

    Dangerous times indeed.

    The only reasonably voice of sanity I've heard is from Dr Ron Paul, in otherwise a sea of insanity from the likes of John Kerry at el.

    Edited by reggy72 at 18:10:55 01-09-2013
  • RedSparrows 1 Sep 2013 18:10:22 22,880 posts
    Seen 57 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    But if they were itching that badly, why wait this long? They do their arms trading all the time anyway.

    I'm not disputing, I'm just curious about the arguments.
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 18:17:14
    RedSparrows wrote:
    But if they were itching that badly, why wait this long? .
    This. They had two years. I wouldn't say they are itching to get in there.
  • Deleted user 1 September 2013 18:18:10
    reggy72 wrote:
    The only reasonably voice of sanity I've heard is from Dr Ron Paul, in otherwise a sea of insanity from the likes of John Kerry at el.
    What about the insanity of actually using CW on your own people?
  • Khanivor 1 Sep 2013 18:23:07 40,845 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It took the US just over two years to get involved in WW2 and I'm certain no one would say they were itching to get involved in that fight.
  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply