Assad: "stop arming the rebels and let me keep killing my citizens with impunity, armed by Russia, and then I'll (perhaps) give up the chemical weapons that I didn't use last month..."
I think what you really don't get is that until Russia and China agree to act against Assad, nothing we do will matter. Any help we give the 'rebels' (and I'm not at all convinced you can speak of them as a unified group) will be matched or exceeded by Putin aiding Assad.
Until we get that little matter ironed out, there isn't a hell of a lot of effective actions to be taken.
And now Russia and the US have agreed to act, and you complain.
In addition I would point out the ex-KGB elephant in the room.
If we take military action we could well end up fighting a proxy war with Russia, a country that has way more at stake in Syria than we ever will. The most effective action we could take now is to bring heavy international pressure on Russia to pull out.
The current talk of US intervention is playground diplomacy, imo.
And military action has been shelved, and we' are trying to work with the Russians to resolve this diplomatically, and you complain.
What's amazing is how the simplest realities are beyond your grasp.
Nothing got resolved.
Assad will remain in power, backed by Russia, and the slaughter will continue.
And Russia just completely humiliated the US and installed themselves as the dominant power in the region in one quick move.
Sure the people of Syria (maybe) won't be gassed - they'll just be burned, shot, blown up, beaten, raped and tortured. But not gassed.
But maybe since you are the self-appointed moral conscience of Soul Strut, you can tell us how this qualifies as a 'resolution'.
LOL! This is what you wanted, pal.
It's nothing resembling what I would have wanted. I told you back then that you didn't understand what I was talking about and you just proved it again.
I said that the US had to act with other countries to get Russia to pull out, not let them take over the region.
I know "pull out" is a pretty technical term to just throw around like that, but you could have at least googled it.
In addition I would point out the ex-KGB elephant in the room.
If we take military action we could well end up fighting a proxy war with Russia, a country that has way more at stake in Syria than we ever will. The most effective action we could take now is to bring heavy international pressure on Russia to pull out.
The current talk of US intervention is playground diplomacy, imo.
And military action has been shelved, and we' are trying to work with the Russians to resolve this diplomatically, and you complain.
Still waiting to hear how the continued (and protected) slaughter of Syrians is a 'resolution'.
current offer seems to be: Russia gets to continue to arm Assad, but the US must desist from arming the rebels. And then *maybe* Assad gives up the chemical weapons he alleges he doesn't even have.
It's the kind of "resolution" that much of the world (and many in here) loves: let the killing continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
current offer seems to be: Russia gets to continue to arm Assad, but the US must desist from arming the rebels. And then *maybe* Assad gives up the chemical weapons he alleges he doesn't even have.
It's the kind of "resolution" that much of the world (and many in here) loves: let the killing continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
current offer seems to be: Russia gets to continue to arm Assad, but the US must desist from arming the rebels. And then *maybe* Assad gives up the chemical weapons he alleges he doesn't even have.
It's the kind of "resolution" that much of the world (and many in here) loves: let the killing continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
I see the current offer as: Russia has the onus of bringing Syria to the table and making sure they get rid of their chemcial weapons, or at least that they aren't used again. Can Putin pull it off? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath. And yes, the Syrian civil war continues....
Let's not forget that it's been Russia, and to a lesser extent China, that has been blocking every single UN Security Council move on this issue, and that includes mere condemnations of the violence that the Assad regime has perpetuated (10,000 dead in 2012, now it's at 100,000 dead in 2013, including 1500 from chemical weapons)
The US threat of missle strikes compelled Russia to finally get involved constructively.
But yeah, the know-nothings are running with: Putin: Chess, Obama: Checkers.
b/w
Syria has already acknowledged they have chems. If Assad is saying now they don't, he's lying. Imagine that.
Syrian war started 2 yrs ago. Obama didn't ok military aid to rebels until summer 2013. Hasn't shown up until Sep 2013. Mostly assault rifles and machine guns with some anti-tank weapons. supposed to go to Free Syrian Army and US only supplying small amounts because dont want anything falling into hands of Islamists. Definitely proves Harvey's US fighting covert war in Syria.
And sorry my arguments are based upon learning about situations rather than conspiracy theory that is trotted out in every situation no matter what is happening. "The government lies!" Doesn't really prove shit.
Motown....isn't it true that at least some of the Rebel Forces have been joined by members of Al Qaeda?
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham is Al Qaeda in Iraq, connected with Al Qaeda central in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and is one of the major rebel forces in Syria. The war is like a free for all. With parties fighting each other and cutting deal with others. The Islamic State has attacked some of the Kurdish rebel groups for instance. It has also tried to take over the main Syrian Islamist group the Nusra Front. The two said they were merging, but then the Nusra Front leader rejected it claiming that the Islamic State just wanted all his fighters and resources.
^^^You talk in circles like a politician and ultimately say NOTHING.
Cool, you know shit. But what's your solution?
Harvey attacking me because I actually know what's going in Syria!
Ps - I can cite all Arab and Kurdish newspapers and tweets from people in Iraq and inside Syria itself that can explain what's going on. Harvey you can't do shit.
current offer seems to be: Russia gets to continue to arm Assad, but the US must desist from arming the rebels. And then *maybe* Assad gives up the chemical weapons he alleges he doesn't even have.
It's the kind of "resolution" that much of the world (and many in here) loves: let the killing continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
To be clear, I do not want the killing to continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
If I thought the US could stop the killing with military action I would support military action.
Right now I think the best thing the us can do is help the refugees.
There are 2.5 million Syrian refugees.
Winter is coming.
They are putting a strain on Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. Not nations we want to see destabilized.
We are going to spend about 195 million this year in aid to refugees (if my sources are correct).
We are spending 6 and-a half billion dollars to upgrade the existing F-22 fighter jets.
A. Rate the following two eventualities by level of importance to you.
- Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
B. Then rate the following two eventualities by the amount of time/energy you've spent or will likely spend agitating against them in recent/coming weeks/months.
- The slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
A. Rate the following two eventualities by level of importance to you.
- Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
B. Then rate the following two eventualities by the amount of time/energy you've spent or will likely spend agitating against them in recent/coming weeks/months.
- The slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
Thank you for the work out.
Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime is more important to me than, stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
Problem is I see no way that US military action will stop the slaughter. US action in Iraq stopped Saddam from killing Iraqis, but escalated the number of Iraqis who were dying violently in political violence. US military action has not stopped, afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis or Somalis from being slaughtered. Even though we have taken military action in all those countries.
I will spend no time trying to incite any kind of violence for any reason in the coming months.
I will continue to support and advocate for the use of US diplomacy and aid to end the slaughter in Syria.
I have no voice to influence the Syrian regime, except through my government.
To be honest with you, beyond mental exercises on soulstrut, I will do almost nothing about the Syrian problem in the coming months. Just as I have done almost nothing about the Criminal North Korean or Criminal Saudi Arabian regime in past months. (To name 2.)
I do spend hours every week working on childhood literacy. Since July and until a year from November I will be spending hours every week working for marriage equality in Oregon.
To the previous poster, I realize you have just raised a question & not given your opinion as to which eventuality is less severe but at the same time i feel your analogy is skewed - Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime, is not simply agianst the Regime. Innocent civilains are the ones who will suffer most & not the Regime. Have the NATO bombings of Serbia still not thought people anything? You cannot just simply weigh up the two points you put at stake without considering the inevitable death toll of civilians.
One look at Iraq clearly shows you the years of destruction faced by the iraqi people as a result US assault.
It's funny that those predicting trolls have become the actual trolls on this site.
The coming attack does feel inevitable but it seems ill advised. This isn't like Libya, where the rebels were organized and fairly strong and Gaddafi was desperate and weakened.
But there are a million refugee children already. How much more slack should Assad have?
It's interesting that the UK is taking the lead at the UN over this. #10 is now besieged by protesters. The US has Middle East fatigue.
Wait, I'm a troll now? Huh. You learn something new every day. Well, I'll leave you gents to it.
No, I really don't think you're a troll.
But your first post in this thread fits the definition. It certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic.
I'll be surprised if this thread goes where you think it will.
So... did this thread go where you thought it would?
To the previous poster, I realize you have just raised a question & not given your opinion as to which eventuality is less severe but at the same time i feel your analogy is skewed - Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime, is not simply agianst the Regime. Innocent civilains are the ones who will suffer most & not the Regime. Have the NATO bombings of Serbia still not thought people anything? You cannot just simply weigh up the two points you put at stake without considering the inevitable death toll of civilians.
One look at Iraq clearly shows you the years of destruction faced by the iraqi people as a result US assault.
There's actual military intervention and then there's the very real threat of it. So far the latter has, without a single US missile being fired, rendered the continued use of chemical weapons by Assad a far riskier option for him than before: it would not only provoke the very military response he so clearly wants to avoid, but also alienate his crucial protector, Russia, whose reputation is now tied to decommissioning these weapons. Russia wouldn't have invested so much in this process had the threat of US military intervention against its strategic ally not been so TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY credible => and I very much doubt that this cast iron credibility could ever have existed, especially in the eyes of Assad and Putin, had there not been a recent history of repeated US intervention demonstrating its willingness to act.
You're right that you can't judge the pros and cons of a specific intervention without taking into account the inevitable civilian cost. But you can't either divorce a history of actual intervention - whether you were for or against it - from the undeniable advantages of "military deterrent" that ensue. I'd rather live in a world where dictators didn't feel safe to kill with impunity. I'd rather too that it was the UN that did the deterring. But as long as such pillars of moral conscience as Russia and China have a veto, I'm realistic and thankful for the stand up role of the US.
Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime is more important to me than, stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
Problem is I see no way that US military action will stop the slaughter. US action in Iraq stopped Saddam from killing Iraqis, but escalated the number of Iraqis who were dying violently in political violence. US military action has not stopped, afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis or Somalis from being slaughtered. Even though we have taken military action in all those countries.
Thank you.
Unless they go with a military strike, then the U.S. only has its "power" in the world to lose in a trade-off with the Russians (and their allies) as a mechanism for having some real punishment come down on Assad. And I expect it will take a major concession from the U.S. to buy off Assad's allies. (An analogy would be that this is like the U.S. trying to buy off the Russians when Assad gives them a lot of "protection money".)
In other words, this is a sadistic war. And the only peaceful way to resolve it is by negotiating a solution where the U.S. loses "something" that is to their advantage in the world.
None of this matters. We are all doomed to be dust.
"In his newest book, The Phrenology of Barack Obama, author Bensa Magos returns to reveal the secrets behind the occulted past of President Barack Obama using the pseudo-science of phrenology. Magos uncovers natural, unnatural, and preternatural features of "Manchurian Candidate" Obama's cranium and brainpan, including the mysterious "head scar" which the mass media refuses to discuss. Causes for the head scar range from CIA brain-implants to a partial lobotomy by his puppet master handlers, as well as the most shocking revelation: that Obama once had a horn. Magos follows a trail of evidence that leads from Obama's brain surgery and dehorning, to government Mind Control programs like MKULTRA and MONARCH with roots in the Na zi Occult, and ultimately to the satanic endgame revealed by the Demon Horn of Moloch."
Given the NSA and IRS scandals, this book is a must read!"
A. Rate the following two eventualities by level of importance to you.
- Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
B. Then rate the following two eventualities by the amount of time/energy you've spent or will likely spend agitating against them in recent/coming weeks/months.
- The slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
If the U.S. wasn't going to get involved some people on Soulstrut would be taking about all the violence and chaos in Syria. Now that the U.S. is thinking of getting involved the knee jerk reaction is to talk about the U.S. government's lies and evil ways.
A. Rate the following two eventualities by level of importance to you.
- Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
B. Then rate the following two eventualities by the amount of time/energy you've spent or will likely spend agitating against them in recent/coming weeks/months.
- The slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
If the U.S. wasn't going to get involved some people on Soulstrut would be taking about all the violence and chaos in Syria. Now that the U.S. is thinking of getting involved the knee jerk reaction is to talk about the U.S. government's lies and evil ways.
Comments
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/12/assad-delivers-his-ransom-note
And now Russia and the US have agreed to act, and you complain.
Amazing.
And military action has been shelved, and we' are trying to work with the Russians to resolve this diplomatically, and you complain.
It's nothing resembling what I would have wanted. I told you back then that you didn't understand what I was talking about and you just proved it again.
I said that the US had to act with other countries to get Russia to pull out, not let them take over the region.
I know "pull out" is a pretty technical term to just throw around like that, but you could have at least googled it.
Still waiting to hear how the continued (and protected) slaughter of Syrians is a 'resolution'.
Must be a moral victory.
It's the kind of "resolution" that much of the world (and many in here) loves: let the killing continue so long as it's not the US doing it.
Very well put
I see the current offer as: Russia has the onus of bringing Syria to the table and making sure they get rid of their chemcial weapons, or at least that they aren't used again. Can Putin pull it off? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath. And yes, the Syrian civil war continues....
Let's not forget that it's been Russia, and to a lesser extent China, that has been blocking every single UN Security Council move on this issue, and that includes mere condemnations of the violence that the Assad regime has perpetuated (10,000 dead in 2012, now it's at 100,000 dead in 2013, including 1500 from chemical weapons)
The US threat of missle strikes compelled Russia to finally get involved constructively.
But yeah, the know-nothings are running with: Putin: Chess, Obama: Checkers.
b/w
Syria has already acknowledged they have chems. If Assad is saying now they don't, he's lying. Imagine that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/Syria-Chemical-Arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
'Leech is.
It's amazing. He got exactly what he wanted, no US military strike, and he's still complaining.
Can't make this stuff up.
Sure you can.
You just did.
And sorry my arguments are based upon learning about situations rather than conspiracy theory that is trotted out in every situation no matter what is happening. "The government lies!" Doesn't really prove shit.
Harvey attacking me because I actually know what's going in Syria!
Indeed.
If I thought the US could stop the killing with military action I would support military action.
Right now I think the best thing the us can do is help the refugees.
There are 2.5 million Syrian refugees.
Winter is coming.
They are putting a strain on Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. Not nations we want to see destabilized.
We are going to spend about 195 million this year in aid to refugees (if my sources are correct).
We are spending 6 and-a half billion dollars to upgrade the existing F-22 fighter jets.
A. Rate the following two eventualities by level of importance to you.
- Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
B. Then rate the following two eventualities by the amount of time/energy you've spent or will likely spend agitating against them in recent/coming weeks/months.
- The slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime.
- Military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
Thank you for the work out.
Stopping the slaughter of Syrian civilians by a criminal Syrian regime is more important to me than, stopping military action by the US against said criminal Syrian regime.
Problem is I see no way that US military action will stop the slaughter. US action in Iraq stopped Saddam from killing Iraqis, but escalated the number of Iraqis who were dying violently in political violence. US military action has not stopped, afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis or Somalis from being slaughtered. Even though we have taken military action in all those countries.
I will spend no time trying to incite any kind of violence for any reason in the coming months.
I will continue to support and advocate for the use of US diplomacy and aid to end the slaughter in Syria.
I have no voice to influence the Syrian regime, except through my government.
To be honest with you, beyond mental exercises on soulstrut, I will do almost nothing about the Syrian problem in the coming months. Just as I have done almost nothing about the Criminal North Korean or Criminal Saudi Arabian regime in past months. (To name 2.)
I do spend hours every week working on childhood literacy. Since July and until a year from November I will be spending hours every week working for marriage equality in Oregon.
One look at Iraq clearly shows you the years of destruction faced by the iraqi people as a result US assault.
So... did this thread go where you thought it would?
There's actual military intervention and then there's the very real threat of it. So far the latter has, without a single US missile being fired, rendered the continued use of chemical weapons by Assad a far riskier option for him than before: it would not only provoke the very military response he so clearly wants to avoid, but also alienate his crucial protector, Russia, whose reputation is now tied to decommissioning these weapons. Russia wouldn't have invested so much in this process had the threat of US military intervention against its strategic ally not been so TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY credible => and I very much doubt that this cast iron credibility could ever have existed, especially in the eyes of Assad and Putin, had there not been a recent history of repeated US intervention demonstrating its willingness to act.
You're right that you can't judge the pros and cons of a specific intervention without taking into account the inevitable civilian cost. But you can't either divorce a history of actual intervention - whether you were for or against it - from the undeniable advantages of "military deterrent" that ensue. I'd rather live in a world where dictators didn't feel safe to kill with impunity. I'd rather too that it was the UN that did the deterring. But as long as such pillars of moral conscience as Russia and China have a veto, I'm realistic and thankful for the stand up role of the US.
Thank you.
Unless they go with a military strike, then the U.S. only has its "power" in the world to lose in a trade-off with the Russians (and their allies) as a mechanism for having some real punishment come down on Assad. And I expect it will take a major concession from the U.S. to buy off Assad's allies. (An analogy would be that this is like the U.S. trying to buy off the Russians when Assad gives them a lot of "protection money".)
In other words, this is a sadistic war. And the only peaceful way to resolve it is by negotiating a solution where the U.S. loses "something" that is to their advantage in the world.
"In his newest book, The Phrenology of Barack Obama, author Bensa Magos returns to reveal the secrets behind the occulted past of President Barack Obama using the pseudo-science of phrenology. Magos uncovers natural, unnatural, and preternatural features of "Manchurian Candidate" Obama's cranium and brainpan, including the mysterious "head scar" which the mass media refuses to discuss. Causes for the head scar range from CIA brain-implants to a partial lobotomy by his puppet master handlers, as well as the most shocking revelation: that Obama once had a horn. Magos follows a trail of evidence that leads from Obama's brain surgery and dehorning, to government Mind Control programs like MKULTRA and MONARCH with roots in the Na zi Occult, and ultimately to the satanic endgame revealed by the Demon Horn of Moloch."
Given the NSA and IRS scandals, this book is a must read!"
http://www.ebay.com/itm/221281010244
If the U.S. wasn't going to get involved some people on Soulstrut would be taking about all the violence and chaos in Syria. Now that the U.S. is thinking of getting involved the knee jerk reaction is to talk about the U.S. government's lies and evil ways.
I use the Global Research site every now and again for articles
Is that what I did in my answer to the question?