If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[strijder20]

No, if I'd follow those points of view, the U.S. Corporate State would be a passive agent to the Great Master Plan of Strijder20

 

[classical_hero]

You're nuts.

Discussion closed.

For the record, I am against intervening in the Syrian civil war unless Western interests/countries are directly threatened.

I stopped reading the OP when he said that.
If e are going to go t war in Syria, it better be against the Rebels.

 

[NovaKart]

Umm, no. The Egyptian Army removed from power an Islamic extremist who tried to set himself up as Egypt's new dictator.

In Egypt many people accuse the US of supporting the Islamic Brotherhood just because John Kerry and others are carrying on a dialog with them in an attempt to ease the crisis. It's really a situation where the US is accused of supporting both sides.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You're nuts.

Discussion closed.

For the record, I am against intervening in the Syrian civil war unless Western interests/countries are directly threatened.

Pretty darn sure Israel is directly threatened by the instability in Syria.

What you mean to say is that Egyptians overthrew their US back dictator, elected an Islamist, so it's ok that the military overthrew him. I doubt you'd like if the US military overthrew Bush because of his Christian fundamentalism, though.

Except that the US isn't exactly OK with the military's actions either. But I doubt the WORLD POLICE AMERICA SUCKS strokers aren't going to get the nuances of anything.

I think that by now a very large number of people are getting quite sick of the ludicrous "policeman of the world" mentality (as a facade covering worse ends) of some governments (aka USA). I don't see this ending well.

If the US was really the world police you'd frakking know it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

This is the problem with any sort of advocacy of selective unilateral intervention. It is hypocritical by its very nature.

But this practice of picking only certain engagements goes far beyond that. Iraq gassed as many as a hundred thousand Iranian soldiers during the 8-year US "proxy war". But even after the US and others decided to selectively kill Saddam Hussein for his own atrocities, which were largely ignored in the past, nobody said a word about those victims. The US even supposedly provided targeting information to Iraq on how to best use them:

In 1980 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency filed a report stating that Iraq had been actively acquiring chemical weapons capacities for several years, which later proved to be accurate.[38] In November 1980, two months into the Iran–Iraq War, the first reported use of chemical weapons took place when Tehran radio reported a poison gas attack on Susangerd by Iraqi forces.[39] The United Nations reported many similar attacks occurred the following year, leading Iran to develop and deploy a mustard gas capability. By 1984, Iraq was using poison gas with great effectiveness against Iranian "human wave" attacks.[verification needed] Chemical weapons were used extensively against Iran during the Iran–Iraq War.[40][41] On January 14, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency said an Iraqi agent described, in medically accurate terms, military smallpox casualties he said he saw in 1985 or 1986. Two weeks later, the Armed Forces Medical Intelligence Center reported that eight of 69 Iraqi prisoners of war whose blood was tested showed a current immunity to smallpox, which had not occurred naturally in Iraq since 1971; the same prisoners had also been inoculated for anthrax. The assumption being that Iraq used both smallpox and anthrax during this war[42] All of this occurring while Iraq was a party to the Geneva Protocol on September 8, 1931, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on October 29, 1969, signed the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, but did not ratify until June 11, 1991. Iraq has not signed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The Washington Post reported that in 1984 the CIA secretly started providing intelligence to the Iraqi army during the Iran-Iraq War. This included information to target chemical weapons strikes. The same year it was confirmed beyond doubt by European doctors and UN expert missions that Iraq was employing chemical weapons against the Iranians.[43] Most of these occurred during the Iran–Iraq War, but WMDs were used at least once to crush the popular uprisings against Kurds in 1991.[29] Chemical weapons were used extensively, with more than 100,000 Iranian soldiers as victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons during the eight-year war with Iraq,[44] Iran today is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction, only after Japan. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 90,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[citation needed] Many others were hit by mustard gas. Despite the removal of Saddam Hussein and his administration by American forces, there is deep resentment and anger in Iran that it was Western nations that helped Iraq develop and direct its chemical weapons arsenal in the first place and that the world did nothing to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons throughout the war.[citation needed] For example, the United States and the UK blocked condemnation of Iraq's known chemical weapons attacks at the UN Security Council. No resolution was passed during the war that specifically criticized Iraq's use of chemical weapons, despite the wishes of the majority to condemn this use. On March 21, 1986 the United Nation Security Council recognized that "chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces"; this statement was opposed by the United States, the sole country to vote against it in the Security Council (the UK abstained).[45]

On March 23, 1988 western media sources reported from Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan, that several days before Iraq had launched a large scale chemical assault on the town. Later estimates were that 7,000 people had been killed and 20,000 wounded. The Halabja poison gas attack caused an international outcry against the Iraqis. Later that year the U.S. Senate unanimously passed[citation needed] the Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988, cutting off all U.S. assistance to Iraq and stopping U.S. imports of Iraqi oil. The Reagan administration opposed the bill, calling it premature, and eventually prevented it from taking effect, partly due to a mistaken DIA assessment which blamed Iran for the attack. At the time of the attack the town was held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran.[46] The Iraqis blamed the Halabja attack on Iranian forces. This was still the position of Saddam Hussein in his December 2003 captivity.[citation needed] On August 21, 2006, the trial of Saddam Hussein and six codefendants, including Hassan al-Majid ("Chemical Ali"), opened on charges of genocide against the Kurds. While this trial does not cover the Halabja attack, it does cover attacks on other villages during the Iraqi "Anfal" operation alleged to have included bombing with chemical weapons.[47]

It is just so much hypocritical propaganda. The atrocities of our "friends" are excused on a regular basis. But the atrocities of our "enemies" are used as an excuse to kill even more innocent people under the guise of "collateral damage".

 

[Borachio]

If the US was really the world police you'd frakking know it.

I wonder what you mean.

Do you mean the US could be the world's police force, but chooses not to? For which we all ought to be grateful or disappointed?

Or, given the US record of policing itself, should we be relieved that it isn't?

But perhaps this isn't what you mean at all. And I'm being unnecessarily provocative. I think, though, I just don't understand what you mean.

 

[NovaKart]

I took it to mean that it would be more apparent and pervasive.

 

[Borachio]

Where would the US find to lock us all up? Guantanamo isn't that big is it?

The more I think about it, the more dystopian the idea becomes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I took it to mean that it would be more apparent and pervasive.

This. If the US was the world police, there wouldn't be genocides happening unabated in various countries, there wouldn't be major civil wars without intervention and we wouldn't debate whether or not the US was the world police, it would be quite obvious.

 

[Borachio]

Wait. Do you believe the US could stop genocidal civil wars, but chooses not to?

 

[Winner]

Yeah, in China they label democratic activists as 'mad' and put them in mental institutions. If I am 'nuts' for comparing Israel to Apartheid, then myself, Bishop Tutu

Being a religious figure doesn't guarantee a clear mind, in fact I'd argue exactly the opposite.

and hundreds of other intellectuals will have to go into mental institutions.

Commitment to a mental institution is not necessary, but they're still nuts. It's like all the dreadlocked youths shouting "gestapo" at the police every time they get what they deserve for doing something illegal. In other words, a groundless hyperbole they should be ashamed of.

Pretty darn sure Israel is directly threatened by the instability in Syria.

Israel is also perfectly capable of dealing with it on its own. Not to mention they've been threatened by Syria for decades, no matter who's in charge.

----

And for once I agree with Putin:

BBC article:

He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the attack.

"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.

"In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."

"So I'm convinced that is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict."

He said that the US failure to present evidence to the international community was "simply disrespectful".

"If there is evidence it should be shown. If it is not shown, then there isn't any," he said.

 

[Defiant47]

Perhaps we should keep discussions over in my thread, we're I've clearly delineated two levels of separate discussion possible:

1. If US is not lying and intel is true, should we intervene?
2. Would US lie about intel?

It make little sense to combine the two. If the US is lying and providing false intel, then I'm completely and utterly wrong, and we should not even touch Syria with a 10-foot-pole. Of course, then what can we do about it - if the US can lie, the US can also go ahead and do whatever it damn-well pleases.

If the intel is correct, do we move in?

The US knows exactly what to do in Egypt. It lost a relatively pro-Israeli secularist during the revolutions and wants to get one back. US aims in Egypt are not a mystery.

What's a mystery is how you know all these things. I'm tempted to think that you're just anti-US and jumping to the closest conclusion that's anti-US.

Egypt: could be the normal risks and volatility of changing governments and installing a new regime that pisses off half the population... or could be orchestrated by the US to get a guy they like in power instead

My toast fell down butter-side down this morning: could be that that's just the way toast falls... or could be the US government secretly controlling butter-makers to increase our frustrations and make us more likely to want to go to war

The point of the thread is that when you say this stuff, you may be looking 'beyond the main headlines', but you're still letting your betters in the polticized media to dictate what you think.

No I'm not. When Kerry first came out, I called bull****. He danced around the issue, provided no evidence, and jumped to conclusions.

Yes, a chemical attack occurred, but that's not the point, stop twisting my feelings to serve your purpose. The point is who did it.

Now we have the evidence.

In truth, if you had looked beyond the surface media BS and ignored the ideological rhetoric and unsupported assertions, you'd know there's no evidence that Assad used such weapons.

I already looked at the evidence myself. The only risk here is that it is a massive conspiracy by the US and all lies. Something I seriously doubt when they've declassified the information in an unprecedented manner.

And as G Galloway and Rand Paul have both pointed out independently, it's a bit bizarre in terms of timing if you assume Assad has any brains. Like those evil CHinese blowing up Japanese railway lines and just as Japan was preparing for a war of conquest.

Why would you assume "Asaad has brains" instead of "Asaad is a monster" or "Asaad is a cocky bastard that knows US won't intervene because of international politics and internal US politics"? Chemical weapons are so much more effective at eliminating targets, and terrorizing the populace into surrendering.

Yeah, there is rationale in fight-picking, but don't think it's moral. The moral bs is the stuff fed to us plebs so we'll consent to economically-driven wars. Think of it as like advertising. A Mcdonalds advert will say it wants to feed people with nutritious food; of course, all it wants to do is make money.

That's why you have to look beyond the headlines and make the judgement for yourself in each case. Nobody is advocating for you or anyone to eat up what the media's serving you and believe it at all costs.

But neither are you correct in insinuating that you should never eat up what the media says. If the media tries to argue for one point, then this isn't categorical and undeniable proof that the exact opposite is correct.

 

[Commodore]

What you mean to say is that Egyptians overthrew their US back dictator, elected an Islamist, so it's ok that the military overthrew him. I doubt you'd like if the US military overthrew Bush because of his Christian fundamentalism, though.

So the fact that Mursi was trying to grant himself all sorts of extra power that Mubarak didn't even have doesn't mean anything to you? Also, the military didn't just decide to overthrow Mursi unilaterally, there were MASSIVE demonstrations calling for Mursi's resignation. Mursi continuously denied the will of his people, so the military told him to step down within 48 hours or be removed from office. I actually applaud the Egyptian military for carrying out the will of the people rather than propping up the corrupt regime of a would-be dictator.

You should also probably do a little homework about someone if you are going to make comments about what you perceive to be their political and personal beliefs. Just a cursory look at my posting history would tell anyone that I am neither a Bush supporter or a Christian, as you seem to think I am.

But hey, don't let little things like facts stop your little anti-US rant here...

 

[Defiant47]

It is just so much hypocritical propaganda. The atrocities of our "friends" are excused on a regular basis. But the atrocities of our "enemies" are used as an excuse to kill even more innocent people under the guise of "collateral damage".

I sincerely, sincerely doubt that the US government is looking for opportunities to get into a steaming pile of conflict just so that it can execute "collateral damage". No, that's done through inappropriate control and discipline over your troops and military leaders, as evidenced by the videos leaked through Manning.

The atrocities of our "friends" are excused, and should continue to be excused until we have the resources and political capital to engage them directly. Hint: that's never going to happen, since everyone's allergic to war, and everyone's selfish. The atrocities of our "enemies" can be excused so far as we don't have the political capital to engage them. But when they cross a line, like was done in Syria, they can no longer be excused.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wait. Do you believe the US could stop genocidal civil wars, but chooses not to?

I don't know. I suppose we certainly could do more, but it's not as simple as the US choosing not to do so. But the evidence pretty clearly shows that we don't intervene to stop genocides, even in instances when we could. Hence, we're not the global police that kriaykiosissos has us built up to be in his head.

Israel is also perfectly capable of dealing with it on its own. Not to mention they've been threatened by Syria for decades, no matter who's in charge.

Yeah and that would require intervention, which was my point.

 

[Defiant47]

I don't know. I suppose we certainly could do more, but it's not as simple as the US choosing not to do so. But the evidence pretty clearly shows that we don't intervene to stop genocides, even in instances when we could. Hence, we're not the global police that kriaykiosissos has us built up to be in his head.

"We don't intervene to stop genocides, even in instances when we could have"

It's unclear how much we actually could have intervened in the past. We could very well be chastised for not acting as much as is possible. Perhaps African conflicts would degenerate to instability regardless, making interventionism without staying in and controlling the nation useless. Or perhaps it could have saved many lives, in which case our inaction was utterly morally wrong.

But what is clear is that we no longer can stop genocides, or stop anything. Asaad could be lining up little girls, raping them, and then throwing them into the next room to gas them, and our population would be all like "let them sort out their own problems; it's none of our business, and we need to sort out things at home".

 

[Winner]

Why would you assume "Asaad has brains" instead of "Asaad is a monster" or "Asaad is a cocky bastard that knows US won't intervene because of international politics and internal US politics"? Chemical weapons are so much more effective at eliminating targets, and terrorizing the populace into surrendering.

Assad is an England-educated dentist, for crying out loud. The regime he ended up heading by accident is of course disgusting, but I assume it wants to survive. The US made it clear in the past that using chemical weapons would be the casus belli it needs to start dropping bombs.

Arguing with the insanity of your strategic opponents is usually wrong. Their goals may be repellent and their morals disgusting, but they are usually rational actors.

Things don't add up - Assad isn't losing now, his guys may still win using conventional weapons. Using chemical weapons is not necessary now, and using them especially in DAMASCUS, which is about the most accessible and visible place for foreigners in Syria, would be an immensely stupid move.

Given the past US record of distorting intelligence reports to suit political needs of those in charge, I'd be VERY careful about this. And of course, the intel may simply be wrong.

Yeah and that would require intervention, which was my point.

But I was talking about the West, and by that I don't mean Israel (it's not usually understood that way, there is always "the West" and "Israel". And I really don't want to debate whether that distinction makes sense, I just wanted to clarify what I meant).

 

[Borachio]

I agree things don't add up to Assad having gassed people in Damascus.

But why not have allowed the UN inspectors into the area immediately? That, imo, is highly suspicious. Then there were the sniper attacks on the inspectors: looks like playing for more time, to me.

 

[Winner]

I don't know, but let me ask this question.

If the UN inspectors went in (with some delay), and returned saying "We're not 100% sure, but we think the rebels did it" - would the US now be drumming up support for bombing the rebels?

 

[Commodore]

I agree things don't add up to Assad having gassed people in Damascus.

But why not have allowed the UN inspectors into the area immediately? That, imo, is highly suspicious. Then there were the sniper attacks on the inspectors: looks like playing for more time, to me.

Well the UN is decidedly against Assad's government so maybe he felt he wouldn't get a fair shake from the UN inspectors. Perhaps he felt they would just automatically believe anyone who said it was his forces that gassed people without doing any real investigation into the matter. Also, there is no evidence the sniper attacks came from Assad's forces, so it could have just as likely been the rebels who shot at them in yet another attempt to make Assad look worse than he is (not that he really needs any help in that department).