Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[CavLancer]

Exactly Red_Elk.
Did you read the two Global Research articles I linked? These terrorists never attack Israel. Syria is not going to attack Israel.

BTW, the US conducts 85% of all the world's arms sales. Half of that is to Turkey, Israel and Qatar.

Sent via mobile.

Whooops, US 2nd behind Russia.


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Whatever.
However, does it change the fact that the US us using another false pretext to attack a soverreign non-aggressor nation -- and defacto support Takfiri terrorists and Al Qaeda?

Sent via mobile.

 

[dexters]

Whatever.
However, does it change the fact that the US us using another false pretext to attack a soverreign non-aggressor nation -- and defacto support Takfiri terrorists and Al Qaeda?

Sent via mobile.

There's no evidence they will try and overthrow assad, but this is very much a slap in the face of Russia and part of a larger proxy war going over in the region. Seen in that context, America is a late comer, while Russia has been there since the beginning and can be blamed for 100,000 dead civilians by propping up the regime.

I get so tired of listening to leftists ramble on about illegal wars, when in reality its the world empires that pretty much determines what is legal and illegal.

I'd expect people who post on Civilizations forums to be less influenced by that type of language.

 

[Formaldehyde]

If I apologise for using one word instead of a slightly more appropriate word in a comment to someone who is not you over a page ago, will you shut up?

That seems to be the gist of many of your posts in this forum whenever anybody merely disagrees with your opinions.

Even Forma doesn't seem to have a problem with my comment.

Of course I had a "problem" with that statement, as well as your other comments. If I didn't, I wouldn't have taken exception to it.

Getting back to the topic, it would appear based on the information in today's paper that Obama's position is based on the notion that it would have been impossible for the rebels to have initiated this alleged chemical weapon attack. But he claims he has proof that the Assad government is responsible and will provide it today.

Besides, the rebels could very well have gotten the chemical weapons from someone else who wishes to overthrow the Syrian government.

Meanwhile, UN inspector Carla Del Ponte is reiterating that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof" that the previous attack was done by the rebels.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

And I get tired of Civil Society hacks taking as fact US media lies about what is going on in Central and West Asia. Please tell me what moral and legal right thr US has to launch missile atttacks on the pretext if a hearsay report from a Goldman Sachs- funded doctor group who does not even have doctors where the attacks allegedly took place.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There's no evidence they will try and overthrow assad, but this is very much a slap in the face of Russia and part of a larger proxy war going over in the region. Seen in that context, America is a late comer, while Russia has been there since the beginning and can be blamed for 100,000 dead civilians by propping up the regime.

The US government has been trying to overthrow the Syrian government for decades now, as have Israel and Saudi Arabia.

And what "proxy war"? In case you haven't heard, the Cold War ended over two decades ago now.

 

[dexters]

And I get tired of Civil Society hacks taking as fact US media lies about what is going on in Central and West Asia. Please tell me what moral and legal right thr US has to launch missile atttacks on the pretext if a hearsay report from a Goldman Sachs- funded doctor group who does not even have doctors where the attacks allegedly took place.

Sent via mobile.

What is a 'civil society hack'?

And yes, if your position is that everything from western media is a lie, you can pretty much lap up the ridiculous claim of 'alternative soruces' like Russia Today and act like you know something people don't.

That governments by default wants to put the best foot forward with any policy is a given. That media has an agenda is another given.

The problem I have with far-left critique of the both is they've created their own ecosystem of thinkers who pretty much exists in their own bubble and claim that only they do not have an agenda even though anyone with some distance from their perspective know its not the case, but rather, you're more often than not regurgitating agit-prop from the other side (in this case Russia)

But that's neither here nor there. You made an unsubstantiated claim about America ' illegal world police' /sigh 'wring hands' ; and I counted by explaining the geopolitical situation that shows America in this case has far less blood on its hands than several other parties involved.

Can we at least keep it on Syria comrade?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

We are talking about Syria. I am not quoting Russia Today and I am not taking Russia's side.

I am talking about what the US intends to do over allegations.

Besides, it is debatable that Russia has more blood on it's hands than the US. Thus has been in the news for 2-3 years, and the US has come out in support of the terrorist "opposition" from jump street.

Edit: re: Civil Society hacks-- Hegel called and castigated "civil society" as Burgherlichegesellschaften or "bourgeois societies." That is, people who take up ruling class positions of "humanism" while the ruling class of their own nation wastes, wrecks and ruins colonies, smaller nations, et al.

Please do not call me "comrade," unless you mean it.

Sent via mobile.

 

[dexters]

We are talking about Syria. I am not quoting Russia Today and I am nit taking Russia's side.

I am talking about what the US intends to do over allegations.

Besides, it is debatable that Russia has more blood on it's hands than the US. Thus has been in the news for 2-3 years, and the US has come out in support of the terrorist "opposition" from jump street.


Sent via mobile.

Yes, but you're certainly using their language.

I have no doubt the 'rebels' have a large number of foreign fighters and islamists ideologues who has a warped view of the world.

But as Obama is unlikely to authorize regime change but rather military action to embarrass Syria's sugar daddy, Russia, by doing exactly what Russia doesn't want it to do , attack Assad symbolically, with the side effect of possibly crippling his ability to project air power and 'damage' Russian assets on the ground. So the civil war will likely keep going on.

So then, what can we talk about that isn't generalizing 3 years of civil war, into a blame 'America' rant when Russia probably had more to do with Assad refusing the back down when the protests were actually civil, largely from liberal reformers and before 100,000 died and an entire population radicalized and the rebellion welcomed in foreign fighters of questionable motives.

Russia very clearly didn't want another Libya, and their motives for refusing to let Assad go when the protests were peaceful was because they saw it as part of a much larger geopolitcal tug of war in the region stretching from the Georgian war through the Arab spring states and into Syria. You can say America may even secretly want to unleash the rebels onto Russia in this case as the Russian empire is responsible for their misery, a kind of blowback for supporting a dictator that shouldn't be and isn't exclusive to bad things happening because of US foreign policy.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

But you are wrong about the protesters. Assad welcomed their input and invited their proposals.

Again, what right and what business is it of the US or Russia to decide? Or you. Read my links. Assad honors his contracts, that's all and that's his business. These "rebels" as you call them are MOSTLY foreign fighters. Who is backing them? Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia

I am not some teenager posting from his parents' basement. I am a lifelong activist for the rights of the less fortunate. Trust me, I never had to use cruise missiles to get people to the doctor, or to get somebody's lights turned back on. I also did not need cruise missiles when I worked on stopping utility rate increases. It's no different in relations between nations.

Why do you think the US should?

Sent via mobile.

 

[dexters]

But you are wrong about the protesters. Assad welcomed their input and invited their proposals.

Again, what right and what business is it of the US or Russia to decide? Or you. Read my links. Assad honors his contracts, that's all and that's his business. These "rebels" as you call them are MOSTLY foreign fighters. Who is backing them? Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia

Yes he welcomed it so much he started killing them.

I am not some teenager posting from his parents' basement. I am a lifelong activist for the rights of the less fortunate.

I find that hypocritical and hard to beleive considering your position in this conflict.

I also find it funny when you made off the cuff 'evil America' comments like these,

BTW, the US conducts 85% of all the world's arms sales. Half of that is to Turkey, Israel and Qatar.

then simply shrug it off as inconsequential when people correct you, and it's a major correction that changes /discredits what you were trying to say.

Do you really even have any credibility to comment on this issue when you're THAT biased and intellectually dishonest?

 

[REDY]

Doctors without borders have good reputation and I have some friend from alleged orgs. So while I agree that western media now openly block true informations, I cant agree with allegation on org. Arguments like curing in area....man in areas under government control there are hospitals and less problems, in rebel controlled are more problems and no hospitals, thats why humanitarian orgs tried cover mainly this area, nothing more.

 

[dexters]

Doctors without borders have good reputation and I have some friend from alleged orgs. So while I agree that western media now openly block true informations, I cant agree with allegation on org. Arguments like curing in area....man in areas under government control there are hospitals and less problems, in rebel controlled are more problems and no hospitals, thats why humanitarian orgs tried cover mainly this area, nothing more.

Might also have something to do with the fact that the rebels don;t have the resources of the state and is being bombed with Russian fighters and artillery?

 

[Rashiminos]

If I apologise for using one word instead of a slightly more appropriate word in a comment to someone who is not you over a page ago, will you shut up?*

I'm not sure.* There was some back-and-forth that went on, too. Why is it important to you that we're discussing someone who is not me?

Even Forma doesn't seem to have a problem with my comment.

Really?
Formaldehyde, is that now the case?

I can see that it is possible to misconstrue my first statement, but honestly, even that is a stretch and I was surprised when Forma brought it up. Regardless, my clarification in my very next post should have solved the issue.

Is that the one that insinuates why Forma is "following" you around?

I have literally no idea why you are accusing me of deliberately implying that I would mischaracterise another poster's position, especially as it was not you I was talking to.

I'm not. Deliberate would imply a [certain] degree a control of what you posted or reposted, I would think

The "but it's not you" part I find to be rather cute in context.



*It's always possible I might talk about something else.

Edit: added certain.

 

[Formaldehyde]

then simply shrug it off as inconsequential when people correct you, and it's a major correction that changes /discredits what you were trying to say.

Do you really even have any credibility to comment on this issue when you're THAT biased and intellectually dishonest?

What part was so "intellectually dishonest"? Not mentioning a few other countries?

U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market

WASHINGTON — Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies concerned about Iran’s regional ambitions, according to a new study for Congress.

Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.

The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.

A worldwide economic decline had suppressed arms sales over recent years. But increasing tensions with Iran drove a set of Persian Gulf nations — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman — to purchase American weapons at record levels.

These Gulf states do not share a border with Iran, and their arms purchases focused on expensive warplanes and complex missile defense systems.

The report was prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress. The annual study, written by Richard F. Grimmett and Paul K. Kerr and delivered to Congress on Friday, is considered the most detailed collection of unclassified arms sales data available to the public.

The agreements with Saudi Arabia included the purchase of 84 advanced F-15 fighters, a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters in the current fleet.

Sales to Saudi Arabia last year also included dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, all contributing to a total Saudi weapons deal from the United States of $33.4 billion, according to the study.

The United Arab Emirates purchased a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile shield that includes radars and is valued at $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for $939 million.

Oman bought 18 F-16 fighters for $1.4 billion.

In keeping with recent trends, most of the weapons purchases, worth about $71.5 billion, were made by developing nations, with about $56.3 billion of that from the United States.

Other significant weapons deals by the United States last year included a $4.1 billion agreement with India for 10 C-17 transport planes and with Taiwan for Patriot antimissile batteries valued at $2 billion — an arms deal that outraged officials in Beijing.

To compare weapons sales over various years, the study used figures in 2011 dollars, with amounts for previous years adjusted for inflation to provide a consistent measurement.

A policy goal of the United States has been to work with Arab allies in the Persian Gulf to knit together a regional missile defense system to protect cities, oil refineries, pipelines and military bases from an Iranian attack.

The effort has included deploying radars to increase the range of early warning coverage across the Persian Gulf, as well as introducing command, control and communications systems that could exchange that information with new batteries of missile interceptors sold to the individual nations.

The missile shield in the Persian Gulf is being built on a country-by-country basis — with these costly arms sales negotiated bilaterally between the United States and individual nations.

Really?
Formaldehyde, is that now the case?

I already commented on that nonsense above.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Yes he welcomed it so much he started killing them.



I find that hypocritical and hard to beleive considering your position in this conflict.

I also find it funny when you made off the cuff 'evil America' comments like these,


then simply shrug it off as inconsequential when people correct you, and it's a major correction that changes /discredits what you were trying to say.

Do you really even have any credibility to comment on this issue when you're THAT biased and intellectually dishonest?

See Forma's
post below. Or, is the Washington Post just like Russia Today in your eyes?

Doctors without borders have good reputation and I have some friend from alleged orgs. So while I agree that western media now openly block true informations, I cant agree with allegation on org. Arguments like curing in area....man in areas under government control there are hospitals and less problems, in rebel controlled are more problems and no hospitals, thats why humanitarian orgs tried cover mainly this area, nothing more.

Maybe, but since you agree there are no MSF doctors where the alleged chemical attacks took place, why does the US take their word as truth?

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

There is really no reason to talk about things are morally/ethically/whatever right or wrong except when it limits strategic "right" or "wrong".

In the situation we have, many Americans (and Westerners I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) are not at all interested in another war in the Middle East while we are still cleaning up the last two. The US gains little directly (and actually may even lose some) from intervening in the conflict, but indirectly, not intervening would mean losing face in the international community.

This is strategically bad, probably worse than a limited intervention could be for the US (unless the intervention escalated to the point of the US having to rebuild the country).

On arms sales, go US!

Someone has to fill that demand for guns and we might as well be the ones doing it!


EDIT: I suggest not arguing about who used the chemical weapons. By the time that information could be discovered, it would likely be too late. And nobody can wait for too late. So better to hit the Syrians now.

 

[dexters]

See Forma's
post below. Or, is the Washington Post just lije Russia Today in your eyes?
.

Oh no, I reviewed the links and one was from 2006 (showing Russia as ahead) and forma's was 2011, so I accept the change as a change in market share. Either way, I was commenting on your dismissive behavior as you clearly didn't know any better when presented with the 2006 figures, and simply implied ' it doesn't matter' ; that you were proven correct in the end is less relevant than your behavior when presented with contrary evidence. Quite typical of your type of thinkers too sadly.

But that's neither here nor there. If anything it shows how fluid the arms market is and your villification of just one country exclusively is what I have a problem with.

So about Syria, what do you have to add?

There is really no reason to talk about things are morally/ethically/whatever right or wrong except when it limits strategic "right" or "wrong".

In the situation we have, many Americans (and Westerners I think, but correct me if I'm wrong) are not at all interested in another war in the Middle East while we are still cleaning up the last two. The US gains little directly (and actually may even lose some) from intervening in the conflict, but indirectly, not intervening would mean losing face in the international community.

Correct and Obama is playing the geopolitical game by bombing Russia's proxy state. Not overthrowing it. So a lot of hand wringing is pre-mature

This is strategically bad, probably worse than a limited intervention could be for the US (unless the intervention escalated to the point of the US having to rebuild the country).

What would be strategically worse is Obama drawing a red-line about Chemical weapons and not doing anything about it.

And also letting Russia get away with their 'nation building' in Syria.

 

[red_elk]

So then, what can we talk about that isn't generalizing 3 years of civil war, into a blame 'America' rant when Russia probably had more to do with Assad refusing the back down when the protests were actually civil, largely from liberal reformers and before 100,000 died and an entire population radicalized and the rebellion welcomed in foreign fighters of questionable motives.

Why legitimate government of the country should back down, facing peaceful or not peaceful protests, supported by foreign powers? Why civil war is Russia's fault any more than it is fault of Western countries, Turkey and Saudi Arabia who are trying to overthrow the leader which they don't like, supporting the opposition and terrorists diplomatically and financially?

Might also have something to do with the fact that the rebels don;t have the resources of the state and is being bombed with Russian fighters and artillery?

Last time I checked, Russia hasn't started military intervention there.
What's much more possible now for Syrians is to be bombed by NATO planes.

 

[Rashiminos]

I mean, screw New Jersey. Also, Detroit. Don't forget Detroit.

I'm not sure anyone wants Detroit. There would be some costs associated with pacifying the local wildlife.

Syria should be in the part of the world policed by the EU. The US can't afford it anymore, and we have the Pacific, which is big nuf.

So we should pass the buck?

As for Syria, I understand the US only wants a "punitive" strike, not even a full blown air campaign to enforce a no-fly zone or to depose Assad completely.

This will end up being a clusterfrak to behold, trust me.

The US has run into problems when nation-building on its own. Creating some astroturf might be more effective than a more direct approach.

Edit: Moved some responses to a more recent post.