syria

1246717

  Comments


  • Jean-ClaudeBanDamned said:
    Rockadelic said:
    Jean-ClaudeBanDamned said:
    Rockadelic said:
    Here is a perfect example on how your mind works....you can take even the simplest statement and interpret it in a way that you think/hope/wish/project it might mean.....and you are usually wrong.

    Jean-ClaudeBanDamned said:


    When Rock said "mind our own business" it can be taken both ways. War IS a major business of the US and has been and will continue to be.

    .

    Wait, what am I wrong about there? I'm not attributing that conclusion to you. It's just an observational riff based on your post.

    What "our business" is is not a matter of universal agreement.

    The phrase "Mind (y)our own business" has a universally accepted meaning.

    "Mind your own business" is a common English saying which asks for a respect of other people's privacy. It can mean that a person should stop meddling in what does not concern that person"

    What you did/do is take two words of the phrase(our business) and try to twist it to mean something else.....it's called manipulation.

    What I said was plain and simple and not open to any perverted interpretation.

    Bullshit. In this context you're talking about what the national interest is. As a longtime worker in the petrochemical industry you can't possibly be suggesting that the national interest can't even arguably involve what happens in the Middle East. Syria, in case you don't have a map handy, is in the Middle East.

    But then you've left the bounds of reality and you're now only concerned with winning the current argument... or something.

    And since you've now insisted that you (and you alone) can't be placed anywhere on the established political spectrum, can you let me know which other ordinary classifications you might object to? I'd hate to refer to you as a mammal and have you go off again.

    You're right

    No, I'm left. You're right.

  • So how about that mammal thing?

  • parallaxparallax no-style-having mf'er 1,266 Posts
    lol...SO angry all the time

    b/w

    R.I.P., SS moderation

    You left far too soon.

  • parallax said:
    lol...SO angry all the time

    b/w

    R.I.P., SS moderation

    You left far too soon.

    I'm not sure you're a mammal, my troll.

  • parallaxparallax no-style-having mf'er 1,266 Posts
    Jean-ClaudeBanDamned said:
    parallax said:
    lol...SO angry all the time

    b/w

    R.I.P., SS moderation

    You left far too soon.

    I'm not sure you're a mammal, my troll.

    lol

  • handmade_tortillas said:

    and which business do you have in mind?

    ?

  • kalakala 3,355 Posts
    watching the clusterfuck unfold in this thread that horeseleech predicted in the miley suckass thread is almost cumical.

    here's an 800 pound gorilla everyone seemed to forget-

    ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL

    thats why we are ready to drop bombs-to attempt to nullify assad's chem/bio weapon stock and of course to drive raytheon's stock up
    oh happy day
    jesus washed?????????.

  • kala said:
    watching the clusterfuck unfold in this thread that horeseleech predicted in the miley suckass thread is almost cumical.

    here's an 800 pound gorilla everyone seemed to forget-

    ISRAEL ISRAEL ISRAEL

    thats why we are ready to drop bombs-to attempt to nullify assad's chem/bio weapon stock and of course to drive raytheon's stock up
    oh happy day
    jesus washed?????????.

    I'll bet you a dollar the Saudis are doing more lobbying for an attack on Syria than the Israelis are. The Israelis are busy lobbying for an attack on Iran.

    Focus, mammal, focus!

  • DocMcCoyDocMcCoy "Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
    This piece raises an interesting point.

    "There are some things which it is perhaps impossible to know. The fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on Syria tells us more about the ease with which opinions are formed than it does about what is actually happening in Syria or about the nature of knowledge."

  • JimsterJimster Cruffiton.etsy.com 6,881 Posts
    On the subject of situations akin to Syria, I read this piece yesterday:

    http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/donmccullin/index.html

    Don is a photographer best know for his war journalism. He's seen some harrowing events and has some sobering views.

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    DocMcCoy said:
    This piece raises an interesting point.

    "There are some things which it is perhaps impossible to know. The fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on Syria tells us more about the ease with which opinions are formed than it does about what is actually happening in Syria or about the nature of knowledge."
    saying
    one thing I do know is that there's a rush to a conclusion which reeks of recent memory with a previous presidency

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56


  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran




    "A senior Obama administration official confirmed to The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the White House did review the issue last year and determined it wouldn???t provide any gas masks or other chemical-weapons protective gear to the Syria opposition because of fears the equipment could get into the wrong hands."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/29/obama-refused-to-send-gas-masks-to-syria-opposition-for-over-a-year.html

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    bassie said:
    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran




    "A senior Obama administration official confirmed to The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the White House did review the issue last year and determined it wouldn???t provide any gas masks or other chemical-weapons protective gear to the Syria opposition because of fears the equipment could get into the wrong hands."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/29/obama-refused-to-send-gas-masks-to-syria-opposition-for-over-a-year.html

    In the 1980s it was known that the CIA was providing intel to Iraq for its chemical attacks. I have clippings from then still in my files. That artice is just a repeat of very VERY old news.

    As for the White House not wanting to give protective gear that's because the main opposition forces today are Islamists led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant aka Al Qaeda in Iraq.

  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    So give me a latte pass. Very VERY old news does not mean it's common knowledge.

    I find the idea of something that saves lives falling into the "wrong hands" so twisted it's funny.

  • bassie said:
    So give me a latte pass. Very VERY old news does not mean it's common knowledge.

    I find the idea of something that saves lives falling into the "wrong hands" so twisted it's funny.

    Except that it isn't. They weren't talking about distributing protective wear in enough quantities to protect the general population, just some of the rebel soldiers.

    The sick fact is that if that gear fell into the hands of the government soldiers here's what could happen:

    The government deploys chemical weapons, and then government soldiers, wearing that protective gear, go into the infected zone and slaughter sick people at will. People who might otherwise have survived.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    bassie said:
    So give me a latte pass. Very VERY old news does not mean it's common knowledge.

    I find the idea of something that saves lives falling into the "wrong hands" so twisted it's funny.

    It was common knowledge when it happened. I'm talking all the major media NY Times, etc. reported it when it happened. It's just old news so people forgot about it or are too young to know about it. The reason why the story was published now was that the official U.S. documents have been declassified so someone decided to write about them as if it were new. It's just like there was a bunch of stories about CIA documents being released about its involvement in the 1954 Iranian coup recently. Every single CIA history mentions it, all the Iranian histories mention it, Iranians know about it, but it got printed like it was something new. The angle should have been what has always been reported was now confirmed, instead all the articles on Iran and Iraq were as if these are new "revelations".

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

  • BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
    US wouldn't be riding if France didn't have our back. Shit's all good.

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    Just wait and watch Hollande follow Cameron's example.

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Frank said:
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

    Preventing another chemical weapons attack?

    189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.

  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Here's what I would like someone to explain.

    Assad was winning by all accounts.....he's not an idiot....why would he use chemical weapons knowing that the wrath of the rest of the world would come down on him?

    Death Wish? Martyrdom?

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    Frank said:
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

    Preventing another chemical weapons attack?

    189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.

    Nobody even knows where those chemical weapons are stored so how would an attack prevent their usage. A military intervention would more likely result in more use of whatever weaponry Assad has at his disposal. There's also the risk of reprisal attacks against Turkey or Israel by Syria and by Iran.

    And who and where are the good guys in Syria? The Jihadists? Those Rebels who are holding some 15 foreign journalists hostage and torturing them?

  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Here's what I would like someone to explain.

    Assad was winning by all accounts.....he's not an idiot....why would he use chemical weapons knowing that the wrath of the rest of the world would come down on him?

    I'm not so sure if he was winning, he was very far away from losing... keep in mind that Assad is a despot who is fighting not only his own people but at the same time a growing number of foreign Jihadists. Irrational and gruesome acts are an often used tools of terror in civil wars. Violence and cruelty are used to inflict as much pain, fear and suffering as possible. Conventional strategic thinking plays little to no role in this.

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Frank said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    Frank said:
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

    Preventing another chemical weapons attack?

    189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.

    Nobody even knows where those chemical weapons are stored so how would an attack prevent their usage. A military intervention would more likely result in more use of whatever weaponry Assad has at his disposal. There's also the risk of reprisal attacks against Turkey or Israel by Syria and by Iran.

    And who and where are the good guys in Syria? The Jihadists? Those Rebels who are holding some 15 foreign journalists hostage and torturing them?

    These are fair points, even if I disagree with some of them, particularly the point that it's likely that more chems will be used in respose to action taken against the regime. That remains to be seen.

    I'm not advocating rushing into anything. Your points about reprisal are valid, but let's not forget Israel attacked Syrian weapons convoys in February, and the respose from Syria was nil. No reprisals.

    I also am not sure that US intelligence is completely in the dark about the location of these weapons.

    Having said all this, I'm in favor of waiting for the UN report, and the President consulting Congress. Military actions may not be the best way. It may also be the only way. No need to rush. However, if we wait too long to respond, either internationally or nationally, it could send a signal of acquiescence.

    This is not a simple situation, IMO, for a lot of the reasons that you lay out.

    As to who are the good guys, that's another good point. I don't know. I do know who the bad guys are, though. They're the ones who gassed their own people, killing almost 1500 of them.


  • FrankFrank 2,370 Posts
    Bon Vivant said:
    Frank said:
    Bon Vivant said:
    Frank said:
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

    Preventing another chemical weapons attack?

    189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.

    Nobody even knows where those chemical weapons are stored so how would an attack prevent their usage. A military intervention would more likely result in more use of whatever weaponry Assad has at his disposal. There's also the risk of reprisal attacks against Turkey or Israel by Syria and by Iran.

    And who and where are the good guys in Syria? The Jihadists? Those Rebels who are holding some 15 foreign journalists hostage and torturing them?

    These are fair points, even if I disagree with some of them, particularly the point that it's likely that more chems will be used in respose to action taken against the regime. That remains to be seen.

    I'm not advocating rushing into anything. Your points about reprisal are valid, but let's not forget Israel attacked Syrian weapons convoys in February, and the respose from Syria was nil. No reprisals.

    I also am not sure that US intelligence is completely in the dark about the location of these weapons.

    Having said all this, I'm in favor of waiting for the UN report, and the President consulting Congress. Military actions may not be the best way. It may also be the only way. No need to rush. However, if we wait too long to respond, either internationally or nationally, it could send a signal of acquiescence.

    This is not a simple situation, IMO, for a lot of the reasons that you lay out.

    As to who are the good guys, that's another good point. I don't know. I do know who the bad guys are, though. They're the ones who gassed nearly 2000 of their own people, killing almost 1500 of them.

    I'm just a clueless civilian but I can't help but wonder how it would be possible to neutralize chemical weapons with air strikes. And I can't help but have my doubts when it comes to US intelligence reports about the existence and location of weaponry that would warrant military intervention.

    Who's to say it wasn't Jihadists who were behind these chemical attacks? Given the means they would not have any qualms to do such a thing and they sure would be the only party to directly gain from a US intervention. Yes, I know, US intelligence reports will prove otherwise but forgive me if I have no trust in an agency that plants bugs in the UN headquarters.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    Rockadelic said:
    Here's what I would like someone to explain.

    Assad was winning by all accounts.....he's not an idiot....why would he use chemical weapons knowing that the wrath of the rest of the world would come down on him?

    Death Wish? Martyrdom?

    Rock, read my first post in this thread. Assad was far from winning or losing the war. The country has been de facto partitioned basically with govt forces controlling the south and along the cost, the Kurds in the north east, and then various militia and Islamist factions the rest of the country. Chemical weapons were probably used because the war is deadlocked, and they needed to try something to break that situation.

  • motown67motown67 4,513 Posts
    Frank said:
    So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?

    I think their reply would be standing up for international norms, i.e. using WMD is a no no by any country. Often times it doesn't happen like with Iraq gassing Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, then gassing the Kurds during that war and the following Anfal campaign, and places like Rwanda. Sometimes the West does, but usually very belatedly like in the former Yugoslavia, and what they're about to do with Syria.

  • Bon VivantBon Vivant The Eye of the Storm 2,018 Posts
    Frank said:


    I'm just a clueless civilian but I can't help but wonder how it would be possible to neutralize chemical weapons with air strikes. And I can't help but have my doubts when it comes to US intelligence reports about the existence and location of weaponry that would warrant military intervention.

    Who's to say it wasn't Jihadists who were behind these chemical attacks? Given the means they would not have any qualms to do such a thing and they sure would be the only party to directly gain from a US intervention. Yes, I know, US intelligence reports will prove otherwise but forgive me if I have no trust in an agency that plants bugs in the UN headquarters.

    Frank, you keep making valid points, man.

    This exactly why I'm in favor of international and Congressional consultation.
Sign In or Register to comment.