Syria: What should the US do/not do?

Be like Nutella

Issues:

• The possible use of chemical weapons.
• The extremist groups within the anti-Assad side.
• Whether to arm or not arm?
• Can a No Fly Zone (NFZ) be instigated easily and maintained easily?
• Should there be boots on the ground under any circumstances?
• What would be the ultimate goal in getting further involved?
• If the US gets militarily involved is Syria just destined to become another drawn out Iraq? (where between 150,000-300,000 are deemed to have died since Saddam left power)

For my part I think the primary concern should be a global concern with the atrocities which have happened in the last 2 years and some kind of combined effort should be made by the international community to stop the bloodshed, get Assad and his guys out of power (by force) and get the Syrians to a table to build a new Syria. It may be 'pie in the sky' thinking to a large degree but that's what I think nonetheless.

The US should lead this effort and the primary goal should be a humanitarian one above everything else. Humanitarian first, then nation building contributions, democracy building over many years after that.

Build a coalition. Call him a war criminal. Give him an ultimatum to step aside, offer him and his people a safe haven if they leave without further bloodshed. Get the main anti-Assad parties together and do your best to convince them that none of them will have a majority and killing each other for decades isn't going to be any better than Syria under Assad. That's all you can do really.

But just watching these people massacre each other and risking a wider regional destabilization (which is already an issue) is no longer the smartest move. Doing nothing is now more dangerous.

This needs pro-action. Whatever action is chosen needs to be viewed as regionally popular (ignoring Iran which doesn't count as an opinion in this particular case). We need a US/European/Gulf partnership - they need to come together and put the cards on the table and choose a path forward - The primary goal needs to be a Humanitarian one - to stop Assad becoming more and more desperate killing more and more people with chemical and heavy weapons. There obviously needs to be a plan in place about how to deal with Al Qaeda who are present there already and will take years to root out.

There is no peace process potential in this between the lions (Assad) and the lambs. We're beyond that point. Assad and his Alawites are petrified they'll be killed, jailed, rounded up, dominated etc etc and they are right to be scared so whatever international coalition comes together needs to take care of these Alawites. There are 2.5 million of them in Syria - they have been the minority elite leadership for 40 years since Assad's father ruled and their time is over. They're out. Finding a way to assure their protection once Assad is gone is the key to this process.

I'm more than aware that atrocities have been carried out by both Assad's forces AND groups within the rising. But Assad has killed the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those people killed have been innocent civilians on which he has used the states military. He mowed down people protesting which started this whole thing.

70-80,000 have been killed so far in the 2 years since this kicked off. Obama is currently trying to make some space to make a decision about this thing by debating the accusations of Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people i.e. moving his 'Red Line'. He'll be forced to make a decision soon enough because his credibility is coming under pressure what with the Iran thing and North Korea thing putting the global media spotlight on Obama's 'Balls'.

What's the thoughts? No point in abusing each other here or making sweeping statements about how evil the US is or is not, I just want to know what people think the US (with/without partners) could, should, should not do to help this thing?

Could be one of those Damned if ya do-Damned if ya don't kinda things but I just think the US has a leading role whether they like it or not and they'll be judged very harshly if they bottle it here. But I'm not necessarily saying that the US should send in its guys either. Clinton chose not to intervene in Rwanda in 94 and in 3 months more than half a million people were hacked to death by Machetes.

The US can do something here - it's just a matter of what to do?

Any opinions with Military insight would be appreciated also. i.e. the reality of instigating a NFZ, how many pieces involved in Assad's air force, air defenses and Radar, what weapons would be required, how long would such a campaign take to complete etc etc

DarkDusk

Nothing would come of the US getting involved with Syria. Look around the world, where has the US actually succeeded in bringing peace to a country? Exactly, no where. Look at the resultant of the US' interference with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (EU also). Soon it will probably be Syria.

The US are not interested in bringing peace and democracy to Syria, they are only interested in making more money like they've been doing for the last 20-30 years.

To answer your question, no they shouldn't, but they probably will because of greed.

Be like Nutella

DarkDusk wrote: »

To answer your question, no they shouldn't, but they probably will because of greed.

That sounds fairly conspiratorial without backing it up man. What would they have to gain from getting involved economically?
I agree Iraq and Afghanistan was/is a disaster but do they not have the power to stop Assad killing his own people here?

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

That sounds fairly conspiratorial without backing it up man. What would they have to gain from getting involved economically?
I agree Iraq and Afghanistan was/is a disaster but do they not have the power to stop Assad killing his own people here?

Of course they have the power, but given the US' history they will not use it in a responsible manner.

It's a pity people didn't listen to this man when he warned of the inevitability of the MIC taking over America:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Be like Nutella

The MIC was meant to be a descriptive word, an analysis of what you see happen as opposed to a conscious entity that CT people like to refer to it as as if it has an evil overlord running it. It's just a free market industrial/political/lobbying network of companies and interests trying to get their way and succeeding a lot of the time.
The upside is that the MIC manages to direct so much funding into various weapons that there may actually be military options the US can use without putting many troops in harms way such as using Cruise missiles and Global Hawks etc to take out air defenses and air force infrastructure so depending on the situation and how you view it the MIC is a force for bad.... or potentially good.

There was always going to be and always will be an MIC of some scale since the time of Napoleon and the original war-bankers... what different people from Eisenhower to Kennedy were warning and complaining about was that the MIC has gotten too powerful, too pervasive, too influential - which is clearly bad for democracy and the world as a whole. I would hope that this time the US and its Partners can use the fruits of the MIC for good and take down Assad, from a purely humanitarian perspective to prevent a bad situation escalating into all-out human massacre involving chemical weapons.
As I've said before numerous times here, Assad believes he has nothing to lose - his fate ends with Death in Damascus, trial then hanging or jail in the Hague. He's been playing the international community by keeping his massacring to a level 'just' below a threshold which the international community would be forced into immediate action - such as killing 1000 people with poison gas in one single attack - to which the world would demand action form their elected leaders. As it stands 100 people a day have been dying and that apparently isn't enough to require the international community to jump in and do something proactive to stop the killing.

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The MIC was meant to be a descriptive word, an analysis of what you see happen as opposed to a conscious entity that CT people like to refer to it as as if it has an evil overlord running it. It's just a free market industrial/political/lobbying network of companies and interests trying to get their way and succeeding a lot of the time.
The upside is that the MIC manages to direct so much funding into various weapons that there may actually be military options the US can use without putting many troops in harms way such as using Cruise missiles and Global Hawks etc to take out air defenses and air force infrastructure so depending on the situation and how you view it the MIC is a force for bad.... or potentially good.

There was always going to be and always will be an MIC of some scale since the time of Napoleon and the original war-bankers... what different people from Eisenhower to Kennedy were warning and complaining about was that the MIC has gotten too powerful, too pervasive, too influential - which is clearly bad for democracy and the world as a whole. I would hope that this time the US and its Partners can use the fruits of the MIC for good and take down Assad, from a purely humanitarian perspective to prevent a bad situation escalating into all-out human massacre involving chemical weapons.
As I've said before numerous times here, Assad believes he has nothing to lose - his fate ends with Death in Damascus, trial then hanging or jail in the Hague. He's been playing the international community by keeping his massacring to a level 'just' below a threshold which the international community would be forced into immediate action - such as killing 1000 people with poison gas in one single attack - to which the world would demand action form their elected leaders. As it stands 100 people a day have been dying and that apparently isn't enough to require the international community to jump in and do something proactive to stop the killing.

You have very, very high hopes.

Be like Nutella

true that.

But there is some reason to believe that the US partnership WILL actually jump in (to a degree) at some point.

I say that because I've been watching the other options dry up one by one. Israel are going it alone, hitting Assad's arms depots to stop weapons getting to Hamas. The region is slowly being destabilized and Iraq's political situation is becoming dyer. There is much talk of the US becoming increasingly isolationist right throughout Washington which is starting to make them/Obama look weak. And with the Al Nusra guys and AQ guys increasing in power up in the North of Syria and crossing into Jordan and other territory there is a real risk of a new AQ franchise arm springing up which will require beating back.

Some opinions are saying the US is spread over too much toast right now and can't strategically afford to get involved any more than it currently is what with the Iranian situation unresolved and the complications of Iraq and Afghanistan AND with the 'Pivot towards Asia' there is simply too many potential fronts to deal with at once.

The CFR Pres Richard Haas is saying back off don't get involved. Fareed Zakaria is saying it's just another Iraq happening in slow motion, other think tanks are calling for just a NFZ (even though there's approx 5000 pieces to take out in that campaign).

Then there's the risk of the large stockpiles of chemical weapons either a) being used by Assad on a large scale or b) getting into the hands of Hamas or the extremist Rebels... and that will need watching carefully and would require abrupt military action to prevent if needs be.

The level of risk of regional destabilization is pushing the debate more and more towards action and I believe in the next few months we're going to see more and more White House talk about action as they make their plans in the background. The 'US troops on the ground' is just not a winnable argument right now so any action will be from distance. Creating a NFZ or a partial NFZ or creating a kind of safe zone for the Rebels to build strength from while arming them with more and more high tech weapons (hopefully the right guys!).

1 million Syrians have been displaced so far and the countries which are taking them need this crisis to turnaround sooner rather than later. There is simply no chance for a Rebel/Assad peace. He has to go no matter what happens here and the US is starting to realize that they need to do what's necessary to tip the balance in favor of the rebels.

The most recent UN guy Brahimi is gone at the end of May - he's quitting - he tried to make Assad see sense - didn't work. There's nobody after him. That's the end of the UN dialogue. Attacks in Damascus itself are increasing and the whole thing HAS to end there no matter what. A US/European/Gulf partnership could take out the Syrian air force/air defenses or even begin to take it out (which would cause officers to jump ship) and this in turn would cause an escalation in the movement of people out of the potential conflict zones which by itself would further pressure Obama's gulf partners into action. The Rebels would reorganize with the help of US 'Advisers' and get armed up the wazoo and the conflict would escalate all the way to Damascus while the international community nervously watched those chemical stockpiles - the large scale movement/mobilization of which would be the FINAL RED LINE which would bring the international coalition to war (which essentially they are already at - with Israel hitting sites and the US and their partners arming the rebels as they are).

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

He mowed down people protesting which started this whole thing.

I see the Israeli attack on Syria has driven some rebel promoters to drop the pretense about it being a purely peaceful revolution at the beginning.

This was never a “revolution”. I among other leftists in Lebanon signed a petition early on after the events in Deraa in which we denounced the regime and mocked and dismissed its narrative of armed groups roaming the country and shooting at people. I now figure that I was dead wrong: I do believe that armed groups were pre-prepared and armed to strike when orders (from Israel and GCC countries) arrive. They had a mission and it had nothing to do with the cause of liberation of Syria from a tyrannical regime.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/israel-bombs-syria-again


Some western observers say the bombing is a clear sign that Israel is frustrated by the gains Syrian forces have made in recent weeks.

...these attacks by Israel come after a significant few weeks in which – in the central areas of the country, President Assad’s forces have made some notable strategic gains against the various rebel forces.

Alongside that, fighters from Hezbollah, coming in from Lebanon in the west to these central areas of fighting, have made a real impact on the ground.

It appears Israel has noted that and – under the guise of wishing to prevent the flow of arms from Syria to Hezbollah – has decided to act unilaterally.

Clearly there will be a degree of US greenlighting of all this – or at least enough for Israel to calculate that the dangerous gamble is worthwhile. But as I say, Israel was watching events closely on the ground and did not like one bit what they are showing.

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/act-war-israel/4826

I doubt the gamble will prove to be worthwhile. The attack will probably put off a lot of Syrians from joining the fight against Assad. We may even see defectors willing to re-join the Syrian army. I suspect the rebels are going to find it increasingly difficult from now on to find new Syrian recruits while the army will continue to replenish its ranks with ease. If the US want to win it looks like they will have to put boots on the ground because Israel may well have blown any chance the rebels had of winning.

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Then there's the risk of the large stockpiles of chemical weapons either a) being used by Assad on a large scale or b) getting into the hands of Hamas or the extremist Rebels... and that will need watching carefully and would require abrupt military action to prevent if needs be.

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

(Reuters) - U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria's civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

"Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.

"This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

So how do you think the US would stop large stockpiles of chemical weapons being used by rebels?

Sierra Oscar

cyberhog wrote: »

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas

And what's more, while the UN is stating that there is increasingly growing evidence that rebels are using chemical weapons, they cannot find any evidence that government forces have used such weapons.

Syria crisis: UN's del Ponte says evidence rebels 'used sarin'

Testimony from victims of the Syrian conflict suggests rebels have used the nerve agent sarin, according to a leading United Nations investigator.

Carla del Ponte told Swiss TV there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".

However, she said her panel had not yet seen evidence of government forces using chemical weapons.

Be like Nutella

I think the US would treat the acquisition of large stock piles of Chem weapons by the rebels as a very dangerous situation. If they even managed to get them or secure the sites it would of course be a major signal that the Rebels are making serious ground so there's that.... but in all likelihood the stock piles are being watched extremely closely by all manner of platforms, satellite, UAVs, high alt spy planes and possibly human Intel of some sort so they'd know quite quickly in all likelihood. Also the Rebels are depending on foreign arms and they know well that if they used any more chem weapons or on a larger scale than they may have a;ready that they're risking it all. The US advisers on the ground (of which there are guaranteed to be some like in Libya) will be a) trying to get arms to the right guys b)side line and isolate the wrong guys and c) deal with the chem weapons threat both from an Assad perspective and form a dangerous rebels perspective.

Some people here are doing their utmost for some reason to paint all of the rebels as bad guys, terrorist, inflicting massacres etc... There are a lot of elements to this rebels force and some of them deffo are bad, real bad. They've done bad things for sure and I hope they'll be hunted down eventually for what they've done but there is of course a huge number of Syrians who are fighting to get Assad out and rightfully so and they deserve respect - you'd think we'd understand their plight a little better from our own perspective - do we not recall how many atrocities were carried out by Collin's men in the name of freedom. My great uncle was one of his twelve men, Frank Bolster - and he killed for Collins from the age of 16 - shot 'accused' British spies in front of their wives as they lay in their hotel beds. I'm not proud of those actions individually or what my great Uncle did but no rebellion happens without atrocities on both sides - it's the nature of civil war. Different groups fighting for different reasons to achieve different ends, armed with different weapons, led by different men. This Syrian thing is a mess but Assad is the bad guy here - he has to go to bring this thing to potential end. He is the one using the state military to kill innocent Syrian civilians. He owns and controls the large chemical stockpiles. He is the head of an elite minority cabal within the political system. It's all on him. Arms were always going to get to some bad guys and there was always going to be atrocities on both sides.... always.... 100% guaranteed.... nothing different here than any other rebellion situation in history.

As for Israel and the Israel CT theory here - I don't know. I think Israel are just taking out supplies that might get to Hezbollah and they don't give a sh1t what Assad thinks. But it may be a stupid move as you say - it may incite knee jerk nationalism - either way it arms Assad with propaganda.

Be like Nutella

" In December, American officials spotted what they believed was a more direct threat: preparations to load bombs containing sarin onto airplanes. The White House approached Russian officials, who contacted Iranian officials, who passed a warning to Assad, and the regime restrained itself. “I’m convinced that they would have used chemical weapons in a very indiscriminate way,’’ Gary Samore, Obama’s former adviser on weapons of mass destruction, told me. Samore said that the sarin bombs, which typically contain huge quantities of agents, are probably still primed for use. “Sarin is a binary weapon; once it’s mixed, you can’t unmix it,’’ he said. "

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/13/130513fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

Pinewoo

Be like Nutella wrote: »

For my part I think the primary concern should be a global concern with the atrocities which have happened in the last 2 years and some kind of combined effort should be made by the international community to stop the bloodshed, get Assad and his guys out of power (by force) and get the Syrians to a table to build a new Syria. It may be 'pie in the sky' thinking to a large degree but that's what I think nonetheless.

Isn't that what started this whole civil war 2 years ago, I mean I find it quite ironic your solution to the problem is the problem itself.

Be like Nutella

care to expand? what started it was a protest which was put down with machine guns

DarkDusk

Be like Nutella wrote: »

" In December, American officials spotted what they believed was a more direct threat: preparations to load bombs containing sarin onto airplanes. The White House approached Russian officials, who contacted Iranian officials, who passed a warning to Assad, and the regime restrained itself. “I’m convinced that they would have used chemical weapons in a very indiscriminate way,’’ Gary Samore, Obama’s former adviser on weapons of mass destruction, told me. Samore said that the sarin bombs, which typically contain huge quantities of agents, are probably still primed for use. “Sarin is a binary weapon; once it’s mixed, you can’t unmix it,’’ he said. "

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/13/130513fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

I wouldn't rely too much on western (mainstream) media for your information, because it's usually untrue. This is the same media that cheered the troops as they entered Iraq and fought a fake war. All you have to do is look at the language they use, I have highlighted it for you. Do you see a pattern? My favourites are "officials" and "adviser on weapons of mass desturction" (well that position has had a good reputation :rolleyes: )

I really hope that you do not take everything you hear in the Mainstream Media to be the word of god, because it most likely is not. That is why I don't bother getting involved with the news regularly - if there's big news, someone will most likely tell me. If proof (real proof) of Syria using WMD is released I will most likely me hear about it from someone else. If Syria is attacked by the US, if IRAN is attacked by the US/Israel, I will definitely hear about it. Get what I'm saying? All I'm recommending is is that you shouldn't get too caught up on what is being preached by the media, because it is a well known fact that the media will tell you what they want you to know, not what you want to know.

cyberhog

One of the wise men of American foreign policy believes "Intervention Will Only Make it Worse"

The various schemes that have been proposed for a kind of tiddlywinks intervention from around the edges of the conflict—no-fly zones, bombing Damascus and so forth—would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/syria-intervention-will-only-make-it-worse/

Norwesterner

The U.S should be helping the legitimate Syrian Army in their War on Terror and help them defeat Al Qaeda in Syria.
Anything else is just bonkers.
The SAA (and Hezbollah) is the only military entity on the globe actively defending Middle East Christians from total genocide.
Just think about how crazy that sounds.

BuilderPlumber

I don't understand why the West want to get involved in helping worse dictators overthrow the current ones. To me, Assad is a brutal dictator but by Middle East standards he is far from being remotely close to the worst. The Syrian resistance seem to be dominated by so-called 'Islamists' (that is, hardline al Qaeda types to give them their proper name) who would render this once religiously apolitical nation another Afghanistan or Somalia. The disasters we have seen so far include:

The 2003 invasion of Iraq: Saddam was greedy and lead his country into poverty but it takes two to tango. The West and its sanctions lead to the hell on earth in Iraq as well. But, when Saddam was removed for doing 9/11 (which is one thing he did not do - his jails were full of the so-called 'Islamists' who would do things like that and who Saddam feared as much as the West), Iraq spiralled into a new meaning of hell on earth and the war caused the whole world economy also to go into recession. Today, the affects of this unnecessary war both in Iraq and worldwide as still felt. Only good thing maybe is Bertie Ahern never got to be president and would be president if Saddam was still in power!
Afghanistan: Taliban had to go for damn sure. But the place still remains violent and the laws there are only marginally better than they were under the Taliban and much WORSE than anything in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Hardly a success.
Libya: Again, the same old laws remain despite removing Gaddafi, the man who imposed so-called 'Sharia' on his then advanced country. Still very violent too.

The only country where a revolution would be a success is Iran but the West tolerate the bunch that control it even though officially they are supposed to be 'enemies'. Revolution will work because religious conmen lead the last one in 1979, still unfinished as it was robbed by these conmen. Now, Iran's next revolution will end these and be the final blow to satanic devilworshippers who desecrate Islam. Just like 1969 Libya and 1979 Iran ushered in religious conmen dictators in the first place. Still, it is ironic that compared to the regimes and/or wars emerging in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, Iran even under its current tyrants is moderate in comparison!

Jonny7

Basically put..

Most countries support the opposition in Syria, since March 2011, however over time, the conflict has worsened and drawn in more unsavory elements - the same started to happen in Libya.

The extremist Islamists also do not constitute the majority of rebels, yet they receive a large amount of press, attention and condemnation

The US and EU and much of the world generally support a democratic process in Syria and have a strong distaste for Assad, therefore they continue to support the opposition - but now with reservations

Critics of the West and countries like Russia and Iran are seizing on the change in the conflict and the influx of foreign fighters to accuse the "West" of "supporting terrorists" when it really isn't the case. No one wants to see Islamic extremists running a post-apocalyptic Syria, lest of all the US (and Russia)

Russia and Iran do not have any particular love for Assad, in fact they see him as overstepping his mark, however they want him to hang on and leave under an "election" in 2014 and be replaced with a cooperative ally who doesn't slaughter everyone and is favorable to them.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Critics of the West and countries like Russia and Iran are seizing on the change in the conflict and the influx of foreign fighters to accuse the "West" of "supporting terrorists" when it really isn't the case. No one wants to see Islamic extremists running a post-apocalyptic Syria, lest of all the US (and Russia)

Did you not foresee the "influx" of terrorists when US began its funding of the opposition? I did, because the US has done it so many times that it's blatantly obvious now. The US funded the Taliban back in the 2000's - do you think the CIA had no idea that the Taliban had a connection with terrorists? Of course they did, and they funded them so they would have someone to fight once they got over there. The US knew all along that terrorists would get involved in the conflict and in the future we will probably see the same thing that happened in Afghanistan happen in Syria.

It's all about greed.

DarkDusk

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia............

Oh, I wonder how this works? If you're a friend of the US, the media stays quiet about you. But if you are an enemy, the media goes nuts about everything you say and do.

LET'S SEND THE TROOPS OVER TO SAUDI ARABIA! (sorry, not gonna happen)

Imagine if that happened in Syria, IMAGINE.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

Did you not foresee the "influx" of terrorists when US began its funding of the opposition? I did, because the US has done it so many times that it's blatantly obvious now. The US funded the Taliban back in the 2000's - do you think the CIA had no idea that the Taliban had a connection with terrorists? Of course they did, and they funded them so they would have someone to fight once they got over there. The US knew all along that terrorists would get involved in the conflict and in the future we will probably see the same thing that happened in Afghanistan happen in Syria.

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

It's all about greed.

Can you explain how the US/EU stance toward Syria is about greed?

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

The US didn't fund the Taliban in the 2000's. Late nineties, sanctioned and fired about 75 cruise missiles in their general direction but no funding.

When the Taliban decided to ban the growing of the opium crop, the Bush administration funded the Taliban in the region of $40 million. I was looking for a link for the official State Department's website backing this up but it seems to be taken down (I wonder why?)


Can you explain how the US/EU stance toward Syria is about greed?

Every war the US has gotten involved in has been about greed. Do you think Iraq and Afghanistan was about spreading freedom and democracy?

Jonny7

This thread is on Syria.

There is a thread on Iraq I've posted in and there have been several on Afghanistan.

Greed plays little if any part in the US/EU response to Syria.

Generally speaking - It's a shared concern for human rights and human suffering, a desire for a stable (and democratic) Syria both for the Syrian people and for the benefit for the region, yes that includes Israel, to further isolate Iran and to see the Al-Assad leadership gone. There is also the ever-changing real politik of relationships between e.g. Saudi, Turkey, Qatar, Russian influence and regional jostling.

There is a lot of residual over-cynicism generated by the Bush years, the war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars; this has caused some to perpetually taint subsequent administration and any allies (whether it be Norway, UN, Canada, whomever) with the same disillusioned brush.

The facts speak differently. Anyway.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

There is a lot of residual over-cynicism generated by the Bush years, the war on terror and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars; this has caused some to perpetually taint subsequent administration and any allies (whether it be Norway, UN, Canada, whomever) with the same disillusioned brush.

You do know it doesn't matter who is in government? Politicians are merely puppets for corporations and the elite. Obama has lied and deceived the world population into believing that he is a "good" president and a good change after Bush. We hear stuff in the media about Syria's use of WMD - let's see the proof, and not from French journalists who have a vested interest in funding the opposition.

We still don't even know the truth about Bin Laden. Was he killed on May 2nd 2011? Where's the proof? There is actually no proof that he was killed in 2011, and Obama's reason for not showing pictures of the body is that it would cause terrorists to become hostile towards the US. If they did in fact kill Bin Laden, then I think terrorists would have enough reason to attack the US without seeing any pictures. Depending on the mainstream media and politicians for information is folly. I base my beliefs on fact, not because someone told me it was true.

The reason the US is involved with Syria is the same reason they are involved with other countries in the Middle East - destabilization.

Jonny7

Conspiracy forum thatta way -->

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy forum thatta way -->

I'd like if you'd respond to what I said about Bin Laden, just out of interest.

Jonny7

DarkDusk wrote: »

I'd like if you'd respond to what I said about Bin Laden, just out of interest.

Well, if you know when and where he died - feel free to share, I'm sure the entire Republican party, including the senators who saw the photos, the Pakistani officials, government and ISI, Al Qaeda group and entire rest of the world will be red-faced when they find out they've all been duped

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, if you know when and where he died - feel free to share, I'm sure the entire Republican party, including the senators who saw the photos, the Pakistani officials, government and ISI, Al Qaeda group and entire rest of the world will be red-faced when they find out they've all been duped

I have no idea when he died. There was reports from a Pakistani newspaper published back in the early 2000's that he was killed. Why would you kill this man, the most powerful terrorist known to man kind who was simply shot, killed, removed from the scene, loaded onto war ship, given a DNA test matched against his family, facial recognition test, traditional funeral performed, buried at sea even though he did not "die" at sea, all of this happening in a few hours and you all believe this? OBL was the key to gaining information about all major terrorist organisations around the world so I would say keep him alive and tell the world “he's dead”. Maybe that is what happened. All I know is the original story stinks.

You still didn't comment, do you believe the original story?

Addition: An article that spells it out easily, graphic btw: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/04/proof-us-lied-about-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden-graphic-2626346.html

Jonny7

/cracks knuckles


allow me to humour you

Reasoning.

Think about it.

All the Seals are in on it (who are now furiously writing books, much to the annoyance of the Pentagon) a decent portion of Obama's administration are in on it, all those captured at the compound are oscar winning actors, including the children. The democrats and republicans are working together.

No leaks. No mistakes.

Vast intelligence agencies, including the powerful ISI, who share a very paranoid relationship with the US - completely fooled. In fact, every intelligence agency in the world, privvy to much more info than you or me will ever know.. fooled. Al Qaeda, splinter groups, Taliban, militants - fooled.

They can conduct this extraordinary conspiracy to fake the killing of the most wanted man in the world a mile from Pakistan's elite military academy..

but they just can't photoshop a picture.


Official story cannot be plausible because "it stinks", but the alternative, which can only ever be a massive watertight incredible conspiracy is plausible.

DarkDusk

Jonny7 wrote: »

/cracks knuckles


allow me to humour you

Reasoning.

Think about it.

All the Seals are in on it (who are now furiously writing books, much to the annoyance of the Pentagon) a decent portion of Obama's administration are in on it, all those captured at the compound are oscar winning actors, including the children. The democrats and republicans are working together.

No leaks. No mistakes.

Vast intelligence agencies, including the powerful ISI, who share a very paranoid relationship with the US - completely fooled. In fact, every intelligence agency in the world, privvy to much more info than you or me will ever know.. fooled. Al Qaeda, splinter groups, Taliban, militants - fooled.

They can conduct this extraordinary conspiracy to fake the killing of the most wanted man in the world a mile from Pakistan's elite military academy..

but they just can't photoshop a picture.


Official story cannot be plausible because "it stinks", but the alternative, which can only ever be a massive watertight incredible conspiracy is plausible.

Well, the Bush administration were pretty good at lying through their teeth about WMD in Iraq. :rolleyes: There was plenty of intelligence agencies and the like around then. But, like last time, there is plenty of people speaking out about it, but again there is no action.