Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away
Comments
-
realweirdo wrote: »No, but I just think the Assad fans such as yourself need to face up to some facts that's all. Blaming the Americans for all the world's ills, its just old hat at this stage. If it was left to the likes of Assad and Putin, all humanity would be in ruins. Just look at North Korea ffs, a communist run sh*thole.
Bold:The Americans are to blame for all the worlds ills. Like just this morning my flimsy capitalist-made Dell laptop ran out of battery on me. Damn Americans!
Then later on today I stood on a plug. The plug was made in America. Damn Americans!
And then my uncle was stricken with lung cancer. He smoked Marlboro all of his life. Marlboro is an American brand. Americans cause cancer! Damn Americans!
In all seriousness, the Americans are not to blame for all the worlds ills. Many of the worlds ills, perhaps, but to what extent must first be ascertained. Maybe 96% of them perhaps.
Italics:What about North Korea? Yes it is ****, but why are you mentioning it? Are you trying to suggest that without the glorious American republic the whole world be like North Korea or something similar?
All I see here is a slightly amusing childish diatribe against "Assad fans" (I'm not actually an "Assad fan" because I oppose intervention in Syria, George Bush....I have actually made my opinions quite clear about Assad and his government before and I'm far from a "fan") by someone with a right-wing siege mentality.
And, if you read my original post more carefully, I was actually supporting your statement...lol.0 -
Very dire situation now in this part of Damascus, people dying of starvation
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-264814220 -
Very dire situation now in this part of Damascus, people dying of starvation
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26481422
Never mind the fact you support US and UK spending billions bombing Syria and its people, US and UK citizens are starving themselves...
David Cameron says UK are prepared to send billion or 2 as part of bigger IMF package to "help" Ukrainians while record numbers of Britons are busy queuing up at food banks.
Apparently...all I'm saying is apparently UK "don't have any money" so clearly Cameron found this billion in his back pocket...how thoughtful and generous of him to think of those poor Ukrainians.
True enough, Cameron also had billions handy for a humanitarian bombing campaign on Syrians.
Jonny7, I get it...really, the earth IS flat in your world where absolutely nothing makes sense.0 -
Harold Weiss wrote: »Never mind the fact you support US and UK spending billions bombing Syria and its people, US and UK citizens are starving themselves...Jonny7, I get it...really, the earth IS flat in your world where absolutely nothing makes sense.
What in the actual f--k0 -
What in the actual f--k
Yeah, I know, It's completely bonkers, jonny7
Unfathomable to consider perhaps UK and US power structures don't care about Syrian people, isn't it?
Considering UK and US citizens are falling through the cracks because governments "have no money", strange then they should have plenty to spend on demolishing other countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan.. and soon to be half of Africa back into the stone age.0 -
-
Agreed
I would LOVE to be sitting in front of you for 5 minutes just melting your brain with the cold bitter hard reality of life.
It is an absolute fact, in the eyes of David Cameron, the Syrian people are worthless **** and that £1 billion being pledged for Ukrainians is probably owned by some private investor.
Prince Charles was in Saudi Arabia not long ago where he secured the sale of 72 Typhoon Fighter jets. The middle eastern state isn't a democracy! Shock! They execute gay people there! Gasp!
You live in fantasy land, Jonny7.
I'll have what you're on.0 -
Harold Weiss wrote: »
It is an absolute fact, in the eyes of David Cameron, the Syrian people are worthless ****
Labelling your subjective opinion as fact isn't really helping your case here.0 -
Harold Weiss wrote: »Yeah, I know, It's completely bonkers, jonny7
Unfathomable to consider perhaps UK and US power structures don't care about Syrian people, isn't it?
Considering UK and US citizens are falling through the cracks because governments "have no money", strange then they should have plenty to spend on demolishing other countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan.. and soon to be half of Africa back into the stone age.
Whatever the US and UK care about the Syrian people, one thing is for sure, you care far far less about them. People like you have nothing to say about conflicts like this until someone shows an interest such as Johny and then you are all over them with your reactionary nonsense. You really don't care about the Syrian people, all you care about is winning an argument. The only thing you are good for it seems is arguing on discussion boards, nothing more.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Bold:The Americans are to blame for all the worlds ills. Like just this morning my flimsy capitalist-made Dell laptop ran out of battery on me. Damn Americans!
Then later on today I stood on a plug. The plug was made in America. Damn Americans!
And then my uncle was stricken with lung cancer. He smoked Marlboro all of his life. Marlboro is an American brand. Americans cause cancer! Damn Americans!
In all seriousness, the Americans are not to blame for all the worlds ills. Many of the worlds ills, perhaps, but to what extent must first be ascertained. Maybe 96% of them perhaps.
Italics:What about North Korea? Yes it is ****, but why are you mentioning it? Are you trying to suggest that without the glorious American republic the whole world be like North Korea or something similar?
All I see here is a slightly amusing childish diatribe against "Assad fans" (I'm not actually an "Assad fan" because I oppose intervention in Syria, George Bush....I have actually made my opinions quite clear about Assad and his government before and I'm far from a "fan") by someone with a right-wing siege mentality.
And, if you read my original post more carefully, I was actually supporting your statement...lol.
Are you f*cking kidding me or what? Get real ffs. Do you know anything about history?
If it wasn't for the Americans we'd all be under the thumb of the Kaiser, Nazism, or Communism at this point, make no mistake about that. And most of Asia would be under Imperial Japan. You really have no clue to be honest.
And yes, if it wasn't for America most of the world would be made up of undemocratic sh*tholes so beloved of people like you such as Cuba, Syria and North Korea.
Let me guess by the way - you are currently typing away on your US designed iPhone, made in a foxcon plant, dressed in Nike runners, drive a US made car and put petrol in it which comes from Saudi Arabia. To criticise America or the west while benefitting from it personally is simply crass hypocrisy on your part. It's like an alcoholic giving out about drinking!!0 -
Advertisement
-
realweirdo wrote: »Are you f*cking kidding me or what? Get real ffs. Do you know anything about history?
If it wasn't for the Americans we'd all be under the thumb of the Kaiser, Nazism, or Communism at this point, make no mistake about that. And most of Asia would be under Imperial Japan. You really have no clue to be honest.
And yes, if it wasn't for America most of the world would be made up of undemocratic sh*tholes so beloved of people like you such as Cuba, Syria and North Korea.
Let me guess by the way - you are currently typing away on your US designed iPhone, made in a foxcon plant, dressed in Nike runners, drive a US made car and put petrol in it which comes from Saudi Arabia. To criticise America or the west while benefitting from it personally is simply crass hypocrisy on your part. It's like an alcoholic giving out about drinking!!
Man, chill out. I was obviously joking. Go propagate your pro-American prattling on a thread dedicated to the glorious republic, not on one concerned with Syria/Assad.
But in all honesty, you would have to have a brain made of soup in order to fully support American foreign policy these days.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Man, chill out. I was obviously joking. Go propagate your pro-American prattling on a thread dedicated to the glorious republic, not on one concerned with Syria/Assad.
But in all honesty, you would have to have a brain made of soup in order to fully support American foreign policy these days.
American foreign policy these days? Its non existant these days. Hence the reason people like Assad are able to get away with mass murder.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »Whatever the US and UK care about the Syrian people, one thing is for sure, you care far far less about them. People like you have nothing to say about conflicts like this until someone shows an interest such as Johny and then you are all over them with your reactionary nonsense. You really don't care about the Syrian people, all you care about is winning an argument. The only thing you are good for it seems is arguing on discussion boards, nothing more.
The difference between you and me is I attempt to uncover the real reasons for these conflicts, that's why I scoff at the idiotic notion UK and US care about the human rights of Syrians or any other third world/developing nations. I mean, come on!...be serious.
You can't really believe David Cameron was thinking about Syrian people when he tried to get UK involved in a bombing campaign against Assad, can you?
Well, it seems some do accept that, which is disheartening.
Another difference is that I do not take sides on these issues, I simply observe things as they are and stay in the middle and continue observing.
Don't fall for the narrative my friend because neither side is telling you the truth.
Fact is, only the most powerful people in the world know what that conflict is about and they aren't going to tell you the reasons.
We can all make assumptions about what it's about but that's all.
I wouldn't discuss my own beliefs except to say it's partly to do with natural gas being supplied to the EU.0 -
Harold Weiss wrote: »The difference between you and me is I attempt to uncover the real reasons for these conflicts, that's why I scoff at the idiotic notion UK and US care about the human rights of Syrians or any other third world/developing nations. I mean, come on!...be serious.
You can't really believe David Cameron was thinking about Syrian people when he tried to get UK involved in a bombing campaign against Assad, can you?
Well, it seems some do accept that, which is disheartening.
Another difference is that I do not take sides on these issues, I simply observe things as they are and stay in the middle and continue observing.
Don't fall for the narrative my friend because neither side is telling you the truth.
Fact is, only the most powerful people in the world know what that conflict is about and they aren't going to tell you the reasons.
We can all make assumptions about what it's about but that's all.
I wouldn't discuss my own beliefs except to say it's partly to do with natural gas being supplied to the EU.
All your posts indicate to me that you could best be described by a word which begin with T and ends with L. Can you guess what it is?0 -
realweirdo wrote: »All your posts indicate to me that you could best be described by a word which begin with T and ends with L. Can you guess what it is?
Your response could be best described by a word that begins with A and ends with m. Can you guess what it is? ...seriously, children call each other names. You're not a child, are you?0 -
realweirdo wrote: »All your posts indicate to me that you could best be described by a word which begin with T and ends with L. Can you guess what it is?
Truthful?0 -
realweirdo wrote: »American foreign policy these days? Its non existant these days. Hence the reason people like Assad are able to get away with mass murder.
American foreign policy is present, but absent of morals.0 -
Harold Weiss wrote: »that's why I scoff at the idiotic notion UK and US care about the human rights of Syrians or any other third world/developing nations. I mean, come on!...be serious.
The US and UK - you mean the administrations in these countries, i.e. the government - as a whole? or just individuals
Does this extend to other administrations in other countries, e.g. Germany?
If these "countries" (I presume you mean specific governments) don't actually care, then why do they provide assistance in earthquakes or any human tragedy?We can all make assumptions about what it's about but that's all.
I wouldn't discuss my own beliefs except to say it's partly to do with natural gas being supplied to the EU.
No, please do, what does the reaction (international) to the Syrian situation have to do with natural gas to the EU?
Since you have highlighted you are completely objective and impartiality I presume these belief is based heavily on facts rather than tenuous links0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »American foreign policy is present, but absent of morals.
What course of action in Syria would you deem moralistic?0 -
Advertisement
-
What course of action in Syria would you deem moralistic?
Now that's the million dollar question.....I don't have moralistic opinions about foreign policy, I have legalistic opinions about foreign policy. Respect for international law breeds a better and more peaceful earth. Though laws usually have a moralistic basis anyway.
I do not criticise US foreign policy because its not moralistic. I'm not saying foreign policy should be moralistic all the time. It should be pragmatic and legalistic.
But the US presents itself as having a moral foreign policy. It presents itself as being concerned with human suffering. It presents itself as being the "Leader of the Free World" etc. The lack of morals in it's foreign policy doesn't irritate me- its presence of grave hypocrisy, the dissonance between what it says and what it does, that irritates me and has turned me into such a staunch opponent of it's policies abroad.If these "countries" (I presume you mean specific governments) don't actually care, then why do they provide assistance in earthquakes or any human tragedy?
Do you think that the pittance the USA gives in charity abroad redeems its horrid lack of respect for human rights, due process, democracy and international law? It spends far more killing people around the globe than it does saving them. Even then, the vast majority of the aid it donates goes to areas in which it has a strategic interest (Israel, Pakistan) and about half is military aid.
In contrast, aid transferred from US private individuals is much more altruistic.The US and UK - you mean the administrations in these countries, i.e. the government - as a whole? or just individuals
Does this extend to other administrations in other countries, e.g. Germany?
If these "countries" (I presume you mean specific governments) don't actually care, then why do they provide assistance in earthquakes or any human tragedy?
Though I appreciate your fact-checking, you are just being pedantic here. Its implied he is talking about the governments of the US and UK. Even then, the people of these two countries (and other countries, not just citizens of the USA and the UK) can be accused of moral impartiality too. For example- now, while the crisis in Ukraine is at its fullest, people are more interested in a bloody Ellen DeGeneres selfie or the Oscar Pistorius trial then they are with a massive international crisis.
It always the same with such international crises. People freak out and bluster and then just sink back into apathy when the next hot showbiz story comes along. Its not just the west of course, escapism is common human nature.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Now that's the million dollar question.....I don't have moralistic opinions about foreign policy, I have legalistic opinions about foreign policy. Respect for international law breeds a better and more peaceful earth. Though laws usually have a moralistic basis anyway.
I do not criticise US foreign policy because its not moralistic. I'm not saying foreign policy should be moralistic all the time. It should be pragmatic and legalistic.
But the US presents itself as having a moral foreign policy. It presents itself as being concerned with human suffering. It presents itself as being the "Leader of the Free World" etc. The lack of morals in it's foreign policy doesn't irritate me- its presence of grave hypocrisy, the dissonance between what it says and what it does, that irritates me and has turned me into such a staunch opponent of it's policies abroad.
Personal annoyance at the hypocrisy has no bearing on relieving the suffering of people - it's far outweighed by the reality of solving the actual problem
Historically every country is hypocritical. Pointing it out is merely a formality at this stage - which some revel in - it swings both ways, it's only real use is as a grinding point or political weapon rather than a tool for actually fixing something
In my personal view, irrespective of their past history, I don't give a blind **** which countries help the Syrian people - as long as they work together to fix that problem
However, in a debate forum, hypocrisy (or perceived) grinds people's gears like nothing else
To put it simply, it's clearly obvious in many situations, that certain individuals are more frustrated by "X country's hypocrisy" than by 10's of thousands of people sufferingDo you think that the pittance the USA gives in charity abroad redeems its horrid lack of respect for human rights, due process, democracy and international law?
It's subjective and debatable - some say the same about the UNIt spends far more killing people around the globe than it does saving them. Even then, the vast majority of the aid it donates goes to areas in which it has a strategic interest (Israel, Pakistan) and about half is military aid.
I fully agree - there is an attached political aspect to certain US aid. Some is purely political, some is a mix and some humanitarian
It's too vast a subject to get into and a separate debate
Re Syria - they donate many times more than any other country - refugees do not offer a "return" on investmentThough I appreciate your fact-checking, you are just being pedantic
It was pedantic, but for a reason - long experience tells me it's a very gross over-generalisation0 -
Personal annoyance at the hypocrisy has no bearing on relieving the suffering of people - it's far outweighed by the reality of solving the actual problem
And how exactly will we solve the problems in Syria? This is assuming that we have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation (legal right or otherwise).
Although I have been opposed to intervention in Syria from the start, the regional nature of the conflict is beginning to worry me, what with both sides being backed by regional players and the conflict threatening to spill over and engulf neighbouring states.
In that sense, we have to stop it before it gets out of hand. Obviously that's impossible with the security council. Simply put, get rid of the security council and you effectively defrost all of these frozen conflicts all over the world. I've never agreed with the UNSC but its impossible to remove it. Any efforts to do so would be vetoed by the UNSC. With the UNSC, the UN is a toothless shambles of an organisation. Even without the UNSC, the UN has failed the human race innumerable times.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »And how exactly will we solve the problems in Syria? This is assuming that we have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation (legal right or otherwise).
Although I have been opposed to intervention in Syria from the start, the regional nature of the conflict is beginning to worry me, what with both sides being backed by regional players and the conflict threatening to spill over and engulf neighbouring states.
In that sense, we have to stop it before it gets out of hand. Obviously that's impossible with the security council. Simply put, get rid of the security council and you effectively defrost all of these frozen conflicts all over the world. I've never agreed with the UNSC but its impossible to remove it. Any efforts to do so would be vetoed by the UNSC. With the UNSC, the UN is a toothless shambles of an organisation. Even without the UNSC, the UN has failed the human race innumerable times.
As the conflict unfolded
UN consensus on the issue - was attempted many times
The UN resolutions didn't actually mention direct use of force, were just simple agreements on sanctions and so on
The Arab league attempted a peace plan, also the Koffi Annan plan
I am pretty sure some commentators hinted that behind the scenes Assad was offered exile (something they learnt from tackling Gadaffi)
It was a classic problem - Assad tested and knew the impotence of a divided basket of countries
Full international consensus - or force (personally I didn't support, because much more complex than Libya)
Limited punitive strikes could have possibly tilted a balance but would have been strictly punitive - and by that stage, there was fully the third player on the field - these Jihadist brigades, ISIS, Al Qaeda and so on - not to mention the extreme banditry and corruption taking it's toll on the country as well as the all-out war
So now we have a situation with almost unbridled industrialised killing and torture - something akin to the first half the twentieth century
The Chinese wash their hands of the situation, the Russians are one of the few countries allied with Assad for various reasons
Neighbours like Saudi, Qatar are swelling the ranks of extremists and throwing gallons of cash at whoever will carry a gun into the country
I really don't know why all the criticism, or most of it, seems lazily directly at Western countries in this scenario - and they are up for criticism - but it seems laboured and more a spinoff from Iraq
****ed if they do something, ****ed if they don't - meanwhile politics are played and the situation gets worse
International consensus was the key - that's been the problem0 -
The ISIS influence in Syria is hugely over exagerated. They control one major town in Syria out of perhaps hundreds or thousands across the country. They have tried to control other areas and have been kicked out by lightly armed FSA or Kurds. The notion that ISIS would control all of Syria post Assad is absurd, but of course they are a fabricated bogeyman which we must all be fearful of. There is also strong evidence that the Assad regime has been helping ISIS by freeing from prison their members and not dropping barrel bombs on their locations, while at the same time mercilessly pounding regular FSA elements.0
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,530 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8143
realweirdo wrote: »The ISIS influence in Syria is hugely over exagerated. They control one major town in Syria out of perhaps hundreds or thousands across the country.
Their position might be overstated, but they do control much more than just one town. They have more dominance than the Free Syrian Army (the group that the west backs), which has essentially collapsed at this stage. If ISIS were of little threat then the rest of the opposition would not have declared war on them.
http://i.imgur.com/myiBApI.jpg
Long term I don't think ISIS has much of a future in Syria. The government is happy to let them linger in the north of the country and continue to fight with other rebel groups, while government and militia forces continue their operations elsewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
Also Al Qaeda have recently split association with ISIS which has lead to even more infighting
The Saud's are also really in on this one, they provided 3 billion in "donation" to the Lebanese army, quadrupling it's budget
Big ****ing game of chess going on around the tragedy0 -
-
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Indeed. Isn't it depressing how so many lives are being bandied around for the sake of geopolitics?
It has actually got very little to do with geopolitics and a lot to do with a mass murdering maniac putting his own power ahead of the lives of millions of syrians. I see Assad is lining himself up for a 3rd term, but this time he is allowing opponents to stand only if approved by the Baath run parliament - in other words no-one else will stand. It looks like democracy in Syria is another few decades off - but lets all blame America.0 -
realweirdo wrote: »It has actually got very little to do with geopolitics and a lot to do with a mass murdering maniac putting his own power ahead of the lives of millions of syrians. I see Assad is lining himself up for a 3rd term, but this time he is allowing opponents to stand only if approved by the Baath run parliament - in other words no-one else will stand. It looks like democracy in Syria is another few decades off - but lets all blame America.
Do you honestly believe the stuff you come up with?0 -
A question to Eggy Baby - do you honestly believe the US is the only country that sprinkles moral language into it's foreign policy? It seems to me the vast majority of people that rail against the US the most are far more annoyed by it's power and popularity than by the things it actually does, given that any of the criticisms leveled against it can often be leveled at many other countries to the same extent, and to many others far more. This could equally be based on ignorance - too many people assume that the big news is the only news, the most reported matters the only things that happen or the most pressing issues. This is not the case. Where the media focuses is entirely based on what they think will gain more viewers/readers. America sells more than continuing conflict in the Congo. 140 people in gitmo is of more interest than thousands of political prisoners in Cuba, Russia or any number of other places. No one seems to care even that our own country, say, makes trade deals with dictators, much less any number of other States. When the US engages in the same behavior, it is morally outrageous and garners far more attention. Fact is Ireland behaves in a very similar (even gets its ques) to the US. We are merely less powerful. Many other states behave far more aggressively, albeit on a much smaller scale. A product far more of weakness than any moral attitude.
I guess my point is - you and many other people claim that the reason you have a special enmity towards the US because they do not reflect their peoples values in their foreign policy, how is this any different than the vast majority of states, besides that the US has a great deal of power?
realweirdo's comment here does not seem much out of line. Arguing that the Syrian government is fighting for much more than it's own survival is hard to do, it is equally hard to see how it would have gotten this bad had the reaction to the initial protests been free and fair elections.0 -
Advertisement
-
A question to Eggy Baby - do you honestly believe the US is the only country that sprinkles moral language into it's foreign policy? It seems to me the vast majority of people that rail against the US the most are far more annoyed by it's power and popularity than by the things it actually does
Do you honestly think people dislike the USA because they are jealous of its popularity? Am I reading this right? Later on in your post, you state that the USA is disliked because it trades with dictators. Wrong. It's disliked because it is a morally bankrupt country with a very interventionist foreign policy that is led by oligarch-lovers and militarists, like Russia but the elections are more fair and corruption is well-hidden(but it doesn't matter because the realistic candidates are militarist oligarch-lovers anyway). Naturally it isn't popular. Ireland is a comparatively angelic state that doesn't get involved in this destabilising mayhem.I guess my point is - you and many other people claim that the reason you have a special enmity towards the US because they do not reflect their peoples values in their foreign policy, how is this any different than the vast majority of states, besides that the US has a great deal of power?
I don't have a special enmity towards the USA. I hate all states that behave as the USA does.realweirdo's comment here does not seem much out of line.
Of course, the reason why the civil war started is because of Assad's intransigence. But the only reason why it has continued so viciously is because of the explicit (and implicit) geopolitically-motivated support that has poured in from all sides.0 -
Eggy Baby! wrote: »Do you honestly think people dislike the USA because they are jealous of its popularity? Am I reading this right? Later on in your post, you state that the USA is disliked because it trades with dictators. Wrong. It's disliked because it is a morally bankrupt country with a very interventionist foreign policy that is led by oligarch-lovers and militarists, like Russia but the elections are more fair and corruption is well-hidden(but it doesn't matter because the realistic candidates are militarist oligarch-lovers anyway). Naturally it isn't popular. Ireland is a comparatively angelic state that doesn't get involved in this destabilising mayhem.
An inferiority complex is not merely jealousy, you can check up the signs and what it is yourself. But there is more to it than merely an inferiority complex.
Popularity is entirely the wrong word - visibility would be a better choice. You claim the US is special in saying it has certain values and not always acting on it. This is entirely not true, it is an illusion created by peoples ignorance compounded by the fact that if the US says something it is reported and listened to whilst the vast majority of countries (including citizens of our own country towards our government) do not get reported on. But yes, they very much do the exact same thing.
You also don't know what an oligarch is, google it to. It refers to a very specific type of rich person in a very specific geological are at a specific time. Then try and make the point again in a way that makes sense.
Ireland does not have the ability to, so that is hardly a ringing endorsement or a reflection of anything meaningful. It was not true at all when Ireland DID have power and the fact is that most states only have power within their own borders - these states should be judged morally on how they act there. In the vast majority of them are far more barbaric and brutal than the US.
If it were merely a moral consideration that is the root of much of the anti-American rhetoric, rather than vastly more about power, influence and politics, the fact that the only people that many states can massively influence negatively is there own would be taken into account. Ironically, people of the political disposition that most critsizes the US for "hypocrisy" in not reacting identically to the actions of all states are often the first to do the exact same thing when dealing with international events. That fact is easy to see as they are often the first to jump to the defense of actions they condemn as deplorable in the case of the US. The example of those that support Syria and Russians support of the regime there being good, or even the recent invasion of Crimea.
Of course it's power and success is the main reason it is a target, do you honestly think Guantanamo would even be on peoples radars with 150 people in prison without trial if it were not? If it were merely a measure of human suffering the 4000 political prisoners in the country right outside it would be of far greater concern. I'm not saying people should not criticize it or that it should not be shut down, merely pointing out it looming large culturally for us has nothing to do with how 'evil' it is, everything to do with perceptions.
That these individuals can barely keep a common moral policy in their imagination on the issue makes their criticism of the US governments inability to do so laughable at best.
Let's put it this way - for it to be merely coincidence that it is the one state we depend most on for a great many things (the majority of scienfitic and technological advancement, the international system, cultural ques etc etc)
is the one to come under special criticism would be a 1 in 200 chance. That is to say, very unlikely.Eggy Baby! wrote: »Of course, the reason why the civil war started is because of Assad's intransigence. But the only reason why it has continued so viciously is because of the explicit (and implicit) geopolitically-motivated support that has poured in from all sides.
And here is a perfect example of my point. There are many countries that explicitly support one side militarily to a massive degree. If this were merely about who was having the largest negative effect, mathematically speaking the resources that Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Russia has poured in to various sides would make them far more the target of criticism. Instead the US is the main target, despite even suspending even non-lethal aid.
You honestly can't see the imbalance? Can you think of any other reason besides it's success and power that it would exist in almost every situation?0 -
Coming hot on the heels of the confirmed Turkish discussions on a false flag attack on their soldiers at the tomb of suleyman in Syria, we now see claimed evidence of terrorists crossing border in Turkey under view of Turkish soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Its_Gbcb614&feature=youtu.be&fmt=18
Taken together it certainly makes the claimed airspace violation Syrian jet 2 weeks ago resulting in it's been shot down as very unreliable.
Regarding the US made TOW anti tank missiles now being used against SAA tanks, it seems they were in US Marines inventory until very recently:
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister
Check the photo's there.0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »Coming hot on the heels of the confirmed Turkish discussions on a false flag attack on their soldiers at the tomb of suleyman in Syria, we now see claimed evidence of terrorists crossing border in Turkey under view of Turkish soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Its_Gbcb614&feature=youtu.be&fmt=18
Foreign fighters have been passing through Turkey for years, the Syrian opposition used the country as a safe-haven earlier in the conflictTaken together it certainly makes the claimed airspace violation Syrian jet 2 weeks ago resulting in it's been shot down as very unreliable.
Turkey says it was in it's airspace, the Syrian government says the opposite.
The Turks have had casualties due to cross border shelling, and have a serious problem with Assad, they will down any jet even remotely close to the border. No one really cares internationally because of what these jets are being used for.Regarding the US made TOW anti tank missiles now being used against SAA tanks, it seems they were in US Marines inventory until very recently:
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister
Check the photo's there.
Yes, the Obama administration pledged lethal weapons to certain opposition rebels last year0 -
Interesting info on an Israeli raid on Syria, the photo's and tracing the location is fascinating
Today marks the first anniversary of one of the biggest air strikes that has
been conducted inside Syria, and particularly in the country's third largest
city's of Homs, on a strategic Syrian army arms depots. The strike was the
biggest after the strike on Jomrayah research facility that rocked the Syrian
capital Damascus in May 2013.
Many believed that the attack in Homs on Aug. 1st, 2013, was carried out by
Syrian armed opposition groups, launching Grad rockets towards the strategic
arms depots of the Syrian army, resulting in a massive explosion that rocked the
entire city of Homs.
Unlike many people, I had certain sensitive information days before the
strike in Homs that Israel would probably launch a series of strikes on targets
inside Syria, mostly related to the Syrian chemical weapons program. The
following are few of my tweets days before the strike happened, later confirmed
by other sources:
(see webpage below)
Although
Israel never confirmed or denied the reports suggesting the IAF was behind this
strike; I was certain that Israel was behind it.
Today and after almost a year after that strike, a number of
never released before satellite photos revealed for the first time that the
target was not the arms depots, rather a secret underground chemical weapons
storage facility south of Homs.
The satellite photos revealed that the strike was extremely
precise in hitting this facility, which suggests that it was not a lucky rebel
Grad missile.
http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-bombed-a-secret-syrian-chemical-weapons-facility-2014-70 -
Looks like the bombing of ISIS in Syria is only days away. And not before time.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28935590
I expect the usual anti war brigade to be out in force whinging about American bombing...the same brigade that were markedly quiet when ISIS were beheading their way across Syria and Iraq.
Syria is now effectively a failed state and the Assad regime have no reach in vast areas of it leading to a dangerous vacuam into which ISIS, the most beligerant and mindless thugs since the marauding Genghis Khan and the Mongols have filled.
The objectives of the US bombing should be:
1. Degrade ISIS
2. Encourage moderate FSA to continue the fight against Assad
3. Somehow bring this awful conflict to an end although that's probably not possible now. Syria, whoever wins, will inherit a failed state where just about nothing works. Aleppo the industrial heartland is in a bad way as is most of the rest of the country.0 -
I disagree with #2 above, a lot of people moved from the mystery moderate brigades into ISIS and Nusra front, for us to pursue the policy of yet again arming these people and expecting a different outcome would be wrong.
Assad still controls vast swathes of the country, he's held on when everyone said he was finished. Isn't it time to put pride and ego aside and admit it was wrong to back the insurgence which led to the ciscumstances for ISIS to form, and finally back Assad?
Most of the moderates will go along with a western backed solution if it were presented. Unfortunately, 3 years on all the hand wringing has gotten our politicians nowhere. Several senior military figures have come forward in US and UK saying we should cooperate with Assad but both administrations have scuppered that almost immediately. So far.0 -
Tea drinker wrote: »I disagree with #2 above, a lot of people moved from the mystery moderate brigades into ISIS and Nusra front, for us to pursue the policy of yet again arming these people and expecting a different outcome would be wrong.
Assad still controls vast swathes of the country, he's held on when everyone said he was finished. Isn't it time to put pride and ego aside and admit it was wrong to back the insurgence which led to the ciscumstances for ISIS to form, and finally back Assad?
Most of the moderates will go along with a western backed solution if it were presented. Unfortunately, 3 years on all the hand wringing has gotten our politicians nowhere. Several senior military figures have come forward in US and UK saying we should cooperate with Assad but both administrations have scuppered that almost immediately. So far.
Assad was the cause of the entire conflict and one of the main causes for the rise of ISIS and also the cause of the rise of other rebel groups you mention. Had he stepped down three years ago he would have then saved his country. Instead he has led it into the abyss it now finds itself in, and the longer he stays in power the further it goes into that abyss. ISIS are expanding their control in Syria by the day. One single man has been the cause of the destruction of a 5000 year old civilisation from which it might never recover.
Unfortunately, due to a complete lack of democracy in Syria, the Syrian people have been forced to deal with a mass murdering tyrant in Assad and mass murdering fanatics of ISIS. It's not a choice really. At least ISIS don't have barrel bombs, the Syrian people can at least be thankful for that.0 -
I feel the same as many about this ISIS. I opposed the stupidity of Bush's Iraq war and I also knew that the so-called 'Arab spring' would lead to trouble. From 2011 to date, Syria has been a total mess.
I think that ISIS need to be removed from Syria and Iraq as soon as possible. We need to see greater cooperation between regional countries and the West and we need to set differences aside. Ultimately, the FSA and Assad need to come to some sort of a deal which benefits both sides but under no circumstances should ISIS or other al Qaeda/ex al Qaeda elements be given any hearing. Iran needs to be given a say too and a total genuine rekindled friendship between the West and Iran (not the devious nature of their 1979 to date confused relationship) is needed: Iran has a moderate president and the West needs to encourage this and be thankful that Iran (which could have become another Syria only a short 1.5 years back) remains relatively stable and safer than its neighbours. ISIS thrives on divisions and weakness. A united front from all its enemies is needed and they deserve to be put out of business before their 'Caliphate' actually is taken more seriously.
ISIS if left unchecked could expand across a region from Iraq to Mauritania to Somalia to Yemen incorporating Libya, Egypt, Mali and of course Syria and poss. Lebanon. Iran and Turkey are strategically located to stop them spreading East and West and Russia ensures they can't spread north. al Qaeda and similar in Afghanistan and Pakistan are problems too but Iran stops them meeting up with their allies in Iraq. China stops them moving further East and India blocks their advance further South. However, there are problems in some Indonesian and Philippine islands. All these to be stopped and not allowed link up.0
Advertisement