I used to come here years earlier. And like you I oppose most US military intervention in other countries. Last time America fought a just war was in World War II. As a matter of fact, your country lost more men in that war than in the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined. But why didn't WWII leave such a trauma as Vietnam and Iraq? Because you were fighting for a noble cause.
Now your military finally got the chance again to prove to the world that they are willing to risk their lives for a higher purpose than simply being a slave to greedy bankers and the military industrial complex.
Look at what France did in Mali earlier this year. They went in and saved the country from being destroyed by a bunch of terrorist fundies. It was the first time in history a Western led military intervention was that popular among the African population! The Malians received them with open arms and many name their baby after the French president now.
The French were genuinely interested in ending the taliban-like rule of warlords in Mali, unlike the Americans in Afghanistan who in reality don't want the conflict to end so it can perpetually stimulate their war industry. Look at Mali today, completely safe after less than a year of decisive intervention, as opposed to Afghanistan that's more dangerous than ever after the world's most powerful military has been fighting the so-called 'war on terror' there for more than a decade. Sure the French also went into Mali for their own interests, such as securing lucrative contracts with the government, but in doing so they also saved the Malians and their rich cultural heritage from falling prey to some genocidal maniacs that would have plunged the country back into the dark ages. Similarly, the Americans and any other Western nation will also expect something from the Syrian opposition in return if they are going to help remove Assad by force. If the world fails to act now, Syria will be torn apart from one side by the bloodiest and cruelest Middle Eastern dictator in modern history, and from the other by extremist murderous jihadists that seem to capitalize from Western inaction by luring all remaining moderate rebels to radicalism, and many more hundreds of thousands will die. Eventually, because Assad and his supporters are in the vast minority, the Syrian regime will fall. What kind of rulers do you then prefer to take his place?
Because if we do nothing, anti-Western jihadists will rule in his place because the Syrian population will forever hate us for not helping them and employing double standards. Such as going to war with Arabs because of non-existant WMD's in Iraq, but when Arabs are slaughtered in Syria by real chemical weapons, the West turns a blind eye. We will have a new Afghanistan right on Europe's doorstep, and countless of Syrian lives will be lost.
But if we go and help the moderate rebels now, and immediately remove Assad from power, not only will we save thousands of lives, but the Syrians will remember us and they will return the favour to the nations that stood by them in their direst hour of need by granting them trade deals, contracts and establishing firm bilateral relations for the years to come. The jihadists will lose their base of support: the ordinary disenfranchised population that are fed up with Assad and only turn to jihadists because they are the only group with weapons. If we act now the jihadists will still be a containable threat that can be dealt with easily, as the French did in Mali.
So running a (not so) covert war means "steering clear" now? Cool, memo received.
The CIA has people on the ground in Syria, but as for a covert war? The U.S. has been giving mostly NON-LETHAL aid to the Free Syrian Army, and not much of that. The U.S. has refused to give them any heavy weapons like anti-aircraft or anti-tank missiles for example.
I appreciate the sentiment - but the sort of dumbassery that thinks pepper spray is a gas just has to be mocked.
LazyWolf, your next cogent thought will be your first.
Don't waste your whining, complaining, insulting, abusive language and general trollery on me.
It is the Chemical Weapons Treaty signed by nearly every nation on earth that calls pepper spray a gas, not me.
the Syrian population will forever hate us for not helping them and employing double standards. Such as going to war with Arabs because of non-existant WMD's in Iraq, but when Arabs are slaughtered in Syria by real chemical weapons, the West turns a blind eye.
Sec Kerry says he believes there is a '100 percent' chance Assad would use chemical weapons again if no action by US.
this predicting the future shit must be credible because it comes from a government source
Let's see: Syria was found to have used chemical weapons in March of this year. Nothing was done. Now, they've used them again on a larger scale.
Yep, no reason to think they'll be used again if nothing is done.
Given that (at least as far as I know) John Kerry does not possess psychic abilities and therefore is unable to predict future events, would you consider him assigning a 100% probability to a future event a slight bit hyperbolic?
I appreciate the sentiment - but the sort of dumbassery that thinks pepper spray is a gas just has to be mocked.
LazyWolf, your next cogent thought will be your first.
Don't waste your whining, complaining, insulting, abusive language and general trollery on me.
It is the Chemical Weapons Treaty signed by nearly every nation on earth that calls pepper spray a gas, not me.
b/w
Have you been pepper sprayed or tear gassed?
Pepper spray is only banned for use in war under the CWC.
Sec Kerry says he believes there is a '100 percent' chance Assad would use chemical weapons again if no action by US.
this predicting the future shit must be credible because it comes from a government source
Let's see: Syria was found to have used chemical weapons in March of this year. Nothing was done. Now, they've used them again on a larger scale.
Yep, no reason to think they'll be used again if nothing is done.
Given that (at least as far as I know) John Kerry does not possess psychic abilities and therefore is unable to predict future events, would you consider him assigning a 100% probability to a future event a slight bit hyperbolic?
Sure, I'll concede that 100% is hyperbole. So what? His point still stands.
I don't think you're getting it. skel and I quoted that specific statement and nothing else for a reason.
Politely offered a chance to explain your position, and you decline.
What a shame.
I already did explain it. Your initial statement in isolation is hilarious. Tie it into the current situation and how various governments across history have lied to their people in order to justify war and it's depressing.
I don't think you're getting it. skel and I quoted that specific statement and nothing else for a reason.
Politely offered a chance to explain your position, and you decline.
What a shame.
I already did explain it. Your initial statement in isolation is hilarious. Tie it into the current situation and how various governments across history have lied to their people in order to justify war and it's depressing.
You explained it? I don't think you did or tried to.
Where is your explanation? Again, I'm talking about this specific issue. How and why are we being lied to with regard to Syria? Let's add: Who's doing the lying?
Once again, I'm calling out all you hypocrite little fuckers here on Soul Strut that thought it was OK for NATO to bomb Libya, but now all of a sudden think it's somehow not OK to bomb Syria, even though Assad has killed about 100000 more people than Gaddafi.
I reread 2 pages of that thread and didn't see one person say it was OK for NATO to bomb Libya.
Most of the talk was about how cool it was that Gaddafi was batshitcrazy.
But looking back we can see some big differences.
The bombing of Libya was done by NATO with France in the lead.
There is no NATO support for bombing Syria.
The Libyan opposition was more unified, less divided along ethnic/religious lines.
Gaddafi was weak.
Those factors make supporting limited bombing on Libya much different than with Syria.
I appreciate the sentiment - but the sort of dumbassery that thinks pepper spray is a gas just has to be mocked.
LazyWolf, your next cogent thought will be your first.
Don't waste your whining, complaining, insulting, abusive language and general trollery on me.
It is the Chemical Weapons Treaty signed by nearly every nation on earth that calls pepper spray a gas, not me.
b/w
Have you been pepper sprayed or tear gassed?
Pepper spray is only banned for use in war under the CWC.
Even though it is banned for use in war, we use it on our own people.
im done with all of this constantly reframing or coming up with completely new questions in order to claim INTERNET VICTORY
skel and I both quoted a single statement, you asked what we meant, and I have answered several times.
You win, you're the king of the internet, congrats.
im done with all of this constantly reframing or coming up with completely new questions in order to claim INTERNET VICTORY
.
This is just classic politician tactics though.
Someone asks a tough question? Don't answer it, just answer the question you would have chosen to ask to yourself.
Someone is attacking your very core beliefs? Don't argue that, go on the attack with questions of your own.
I use these in work all the time now, it's remarkably effective.
Once again, I'm calling out all you hypocrite little fuckers here on Soul Strut that thought it was OK for NATO to bomb Libya, but now all of a sudden think it's somehow not OK to bomb Syria, even though Assad has killed about 100000 more people than Gaddafi.
I reread 2 pages of that thread and didn't see one person say it was OK for NATO to bomb Libya.
Most of the talk was about how cool it was that Gaddafi was batshitcrazy.
But looking back we can see some big differences.
The bombing of Libya was done by NATO with France in the lead.
There is no NATO support for bombing Syria.
The Libyan opposition was more unified, less divided along ethnic/religious lines.
Gaddafi was weak.
Those factors make supporting limited bombing on Libya much different than with Syria.
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is? He's a hundred times worse than Gaddafi.
Those are bullshit arguments, the opposition is not divided along ethnic/religious lines because almost all the opposition are Sunni Muslim Arabs (while Assad and his allies are Shiites). And the Libyan opposition is not better organized than the Syrian one.
NATO intervened to save human lives remember? How many more need to die in Syria for someone to step in? 120000 have died there already since 2011.
No one here is defending Asssad.
No one here is saying Gaddafi was worse than Assad.
Gaddafi had the cool hat and a personal security team made up of 6 foot tall women.
That's what I saw people talking about on the thread you linked to.
If NATO Decides to bomb Syria with France leading the charge not many people here will complain.
To get a better understanding of the complexities of the demographics of the Syrian population and opposition go back and reread Motown's posts.
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is? .
In 2009, the Obama administration was instrumental in facilitating a free-trade deal that would have seen billions of dollars in commerce flow between the European Union and Syria,
U.S. opposition was a main factor in the deal being delayed, since it was drawn up as a draft pact in 2004. The deal is worth an estimated $7 billion a year for the Syrian economy. The Bush administration was particularly opposed to Syria???s interference in Lebanese affairs and Damascus??? military alliance with Iran.
According to the Egyptian and Palestinian diplomatic sources, the Obama administration dropped American opposition to the deal without first extracting a concession from Syria to end its alliance with Iran.
The Obama national security team that wants to go to war with Syria and demonizes President Bashar Assad is the same group that, as senators, urged reaching out to the dictator.
As a bloc on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, President Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden all opposed the George W. Bush administration???s playing tough with Mr. Assad.
None grew closer to Mr. Assad and promoted him in Washington more than Mr. Kerry.
???President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,??? Mr. Kerry, as a senator from Massachusetts, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2011. He predicted that Mr. Assad would change for the better.
im done with all of this constantly reframing or coming up with completely new questions in order to claim INTERNET VICTORY
skel and I both quoted a single statement, you asked what we meant, and I have answered several times.
You win, you're the king of the internet, congrats.
Libya is a fucking mess and our intervention there will be looked upon years from now as a catastrophe.
Enabled Jihadists to run rampant through Mali, destroying valuable cultural heritage in addition to killing and raping people? check
Reduced the country's oil production to fractions of what it was? check
Created another failed state in which terrorist groups can operate freely? man are we #WINNING or what
fuck yes America!~
Absolutely nothing will be accomplished by our milquetoast "intervention" and we will project an even more powerless image than already exists, which is really saying something when it comes to U.S. of fuckin' A. !!!!!11!!!11ONE
When will we learn. We need to stay the fuck out of these fucked off countries' shit (much of which we created). We should have been doing that 20, 100 years ago too, but fuck, at some point you need to stop digging.
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is? .
In 2009, the Obama administration was instrumental in facilitating a free-trade deal that would have seen billions of dollars in commerce flow between the European Union and Syria,
U.S. opposition was a main factor in the deal being delayed, since it was drawn up as a draft pact in 2004. The deal is worth an estimated $7 billion a year for the Syrian economy. The Bush administration was particularly opposed to Syria???s interference in Lebanese affairs and Damascus??? military alliance with Iran.
According to the Egyptian and Palestinian diplomatic sources, the Obama administration dropped American opposition to the deal without first extracting a concession from Syria to end its alliance with Iran.
The Obama national security team that wants to go to war with Syria and demonizes President Bashar Assad is the same group that, as senators, urged reaching out to the dictator.
As a bloc on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, President Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden all opposed the George W. Bush administration???s playing tough with Mr. Assad.
None grew closer to Mr. Assad and promoted him in Washington more than Mr. Kerry.
???President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,??? Mr. Kerry, as a senator from Massachusetts, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2011. He predicted that Mr. Assad would change for the better.
Now people are complaining that a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this issue was vigorously attempted.
im done with all of this constantly reframing or coming up with completely new questions in order to claim INTERNET VICTORY
skel and I both quoted a single statement, you asked what we meant, and I have answered several times.
You win, you're the king of the internet, congrats.
Wow, need a tissue?
Nah but thanks for the reminder to not waste time with you.
Absolutely nothing will be accomplished by our milquetoast "intervention" and we will project an even more powerless image than already exists, which is really saying something when it comes to U.S. of fuckin' A. !!!!!11!!!11ONE
I agree the USA is looking less and less powerful these days. But is this a bad thing? And if it is, and we want to reverse the trend, is that aim served by refraining from engaging in Syria? I'm not trolling; I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. Are we too powerful/not powerful enough/powerful in the wrong sense of the word....?
Comments
this predicting the future shit must be credible because it comes from a government source
I used to come here years earlier. And like you I oppose most US military intervention in other countries. Last time America fought a just war was in World War II. As a matter of fact, your country lost more men in that war than in the Vietnam and Iraq wars combined. But why didn't WWII leave such a trauma as Vietnam and Iraq? Because you were fighting for a noble cause.
Now your military finally got the chance again to prove to the world that they are willing to risk their lives for a higher purpose than simply being a slave to greedy bankers and the military industrial complex.
Look at what France did in Mali earlier this year. They went in and saved the country from being destroyed by a bunch of terrorist fundies. It was the first time in history a Western led military intervention was that popular among the African population! The Malians received them with open arms and many name their baby after the French president now.
The French were genuinely interested in ending the taliban-like rule of warlords in Mali, unlike the Americans in Afghanistan who in reality don't want the conflict to end so it can perpetually stimulate their war industry. Look at Mali today, completely safe after less than a year of decisive intervention, as opposed to Afghanistan that's more dangerous than ever after the world's most powerful military has been fighting the so-called 'war on terror' there for more than a decade. Sure the French also went into Mali for their own interests, such as securing lucrative contracts with the government, but in doing so they also saved the Malians and their rich cultural heritage from falling prey to some genocidal maniacs that would have plunged the country back into the dark ages. Similarly, the Americans and any other Western nation will also expect something from the Syrian opposition in return if they are going to help remove Assad by force. If the world fails to act now, Syria will be torn apart from one side by the bloodiest and cruelest Middle Eastern dictator in modern history, and from the other by extremist murderous jihadists that seem to capitalize from Western inaction by luring all remaining moderate rebels to radicalism, and many more hundreds of thousands will die. Eventually, because Assad and his supporters are in the vast minority, the Syrian regime will fall. What kind of rulers do you then prefer to take his place?
Because if we do nothing, anti-Western jihadists will rule in his place because the Syrian population will forever hate us for not helping them and employing double standards. Such as going to war with Arabs because of non-existant WMD's in Iraq, but when Arabs are slaughtered in Syria by real chemical weapons, the West turns a blind eye. We will have a new Afghanistan right on Europe's doorstep, and countless of Syrian lives will be lost.
But if we go and help the moderate rebels now, and immediately remove Assad from power, not only will we save thousands of lives, but the Syrians will remember us and they will return the favour to the nations that stood by them in their direst hour of need by granting them trade deals, contracts and establishing firm bilateral relations for the years to come. The jihadists will lose their base of support: the ordinary disenfranchised population that are fed up with Assad and only turn to jihadists because they are the only group with weapons. If we act now the jihadists will still be a containable threat that can be dealt with easily, as the French did in Mali.
The CIA has people on the ground in Syria, but as for a covert war? The U.S. has been giving mostly NON-LETHAL aid to the Free Syrian Army, and not much of that. The U.S. has refused to give them any heavy weapons like anti-aircraft or anti-tank missiles for example.
Politely offered a chance to explain your position, and you decline.
What a shame.
I offer you the same chance to explain your reasons why and how Syria is the same as "all experiences to the contrary"
Don't waste your whining, complaining, insulting, abusive language and general trollery on me.
It is the Chemical Weapons Treaty signed by nearly every nation on earth that calls pepper spray a gas, not me.
b/w
Have you been pepper sprayed or tear gassed?
Let's see: Syria was found to have used chemical weapons in March of this year. Nothing was done. Now, they've used them again on a larger scale.
Yep, no reason to think they'll be used again if nothing is done.
Couldn't agree more with this.
Pepper spray is only banned for use in war under the CWC.
Sure, I'll concede that 100% is hyperbole. So what? His point still stands.
You explained it? I don't think you did or tried to.
Where is your explanation? Again, I'm talking about this specific issue. How and why are we being lied to with regard to Syria? Let's add: Who's doing the lying?
I reread 2 pages of that thread and didn't see one person say it was OK for NATO to bomb Libya.
Most of the talk was about how cool it was that Gaddafi was batshitcrazy.
But looking back we can see some big differences.
The bombing of Libya was done by NATO with France in the lead.
There is no NATO support for bombing Syria.
The Libyan opposition was more unified, less divided along ethnic/religious lines.
Gaddafi was weak.
Those factors make supporting limited bombing on Libya much different than with Syria.
Even though it is banned for use in war, we use it on our own people.
skel and I both quoted a single statement, you asked what we meant, and I have answered several times.
You win, you're the king of the internet, congrats.
This is just classic politician tactics though.
Someone asks a tough question? Don't answer it, just answer the question you would have chosen to ask to yourself.
Someone is attacking your very core beliefs? Don't argue that, go on the attack with questions of your own.
I use these in work all the time now, it's remarkably effective.
Then why is almost no one in this thread talking about how batshitcrazy Assad is? He's a hundred times worse than Gaddafi.
Those are bullshit arguments, the opposition is not divided along ethnic/religious lines because almost all the opposition are Sunni Muslim Arabs (while Assad and his allies are Shiites). And the Libyan opposition is not better organized than the Syrian one.
NATO intervened to save human lives remember? How many more need to die in Syria for someone to step in? 120000 have died there already since 2011.
No one here is saying Gaddafi was worse than Assad.
Gaddafi had the cool hat and a personal security team made up of 6 foot tall women.
That's what I saw people talking about on the thread you linked to.
If NATO Decides to bomb Syria with France leading the charge not many people here will complain.
To get a better understanding of the complexities of the demographics of the Syrian population and opposition go back and reread Motown's posts.
In 2009, the Obama administration was instrumental in facilitating a free-trade deal that would have seen billions of dollars in commerce flow between the European Union and Syria,
U.S. opposition was a main factor in the deal being delayed, since it was drawn up as a draft pact in 2004. The deal is worth an estimated $7 billion a year for the Syrian economy. The Bush administration was particularly opposed to Syria???s interference in Lebanese affairs and Damascus??? military alliance with Iran.
According to the Egyptian and Palestinian diplomatic sources, the Obama administration dropped American opposition to the deal without first extracting a concession from Syria to end its alliance with Iran.
The Obama national security team that wants to go to war with Syria and demonizes President Bashar Assad is the same group that, as senators, urged reaching out to the dictator.
As a bloc on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, President Obama, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Vice President Joseph R. Biden all opposed the George W. Bush administration???s playing tough with Mr. Assad.
None grew closer to Mr. Assad and promoted him in Washington more than Mr. Kerry.
???President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had,??? Mr. Kerry, as a senator from Massachusetts, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2011. He predicted that Mr. Assad would change for the better.
Admission of being wrong about Assad in the past and CYA.
There's a difference between enforcing our laws/crowd dispersal and warfare.
Wow, need a tissue?
Enabled Jihadists to run rampant through Mali, destroying valuable cultural heritage in addition to killing and raping people? check
Reduced the country's oil production to fractions of what it was? check
Created another failed state in which terrorist groups can operate freely? man are we #WINNING or what
fuck yes America!~
Absolutely nothing will be accomplished by our milquetoast "intervention" and we will project an even more powerless image than already exists, which is really saying something when it comes to U.S. of fuckin' A. !!!!!11!!!11ONE
When will we learn. We need to stay the fuck out of these fucked off countries' shit (much of which we created). We should have been doing that 20, 100 years ago too, but fuck, at some point you need to stop digging.
Now people are complaining that a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this issue was vigorously attempted.
Amazing.
I agree the USA is looking less and less powerful these days. But is this a bad thing? And if it is, and we want to reverse the trend, is that aim served by refraining from engaging in Syria? I'm not trolling; I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. Are we too powerful/not powerful enough/powerful in the wrong sense of the word....?