Syria Again

Elmer Blooker

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But I thought Saddam was a lovely secular dictator whose only crime was to say No to America and who should have been left in power?

Saddam's biggest crime wasn't his gassing of Kurds or his secret police apparatus, nasty stuff like that can easily be overlooked. This was his biggest "crime". An example had to be made. Enter the WMD.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

Gatling

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

Sounds exactly like Facebook memes terrible,

Wait it is

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Saddam's biggest crime wasn't his gassing of Kurds or his secret police apparatus, nasty stuff like that can easily be overlooked. This was his biggest "crime". An example had to be made. Enter the WMD.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

Of course it was. :rolleyes:

I think many of yours posts belong in the Conspiracy Forum to be honest.

First Up

slovakchick wrote:

Link proof

Proof of what? You brought them into it. What point are you trying to make?

Elmer Blooker

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But I thought Saddam was a lovely secular dictator whose only crime was to say No to America and who should have been left in power?

But he WAS left in power. He could easily have been removed in 1990 during the First Gulf War. Instead he was seen as a counter to Iranian interests, had his uses and was allowed to remain in power for another 13 years.

.... I suppose that's my latest conspiracy theory?

Shurimgreat

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But he WAS left in power. He could easily have been removed in 1990 during the First Gulf War. Instead he was seen as a counter to Iranian interests, had his uses and was allowed to remain in power for another 13 years.

.... I suppose that's my latest conspiracy theory?

I'd say Bush Snr. was of the view there was nothing to replace him with. Oddly enough many people now agree with him. I don't think it mattered if Saddam was removed in 2003 or 1990, its what came next was the big question. The Americans and Allies (lets not forget the First Gulf War was a huge multilateral operation) would have to be prepared to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and set up some kind of government that had widespread support. Not so easy in Iraq. The probability of Civil War would have been high.

This is not to say I agree with what the Americans did with Iraq. I'm fairly neutral on whether Saddam should have been kept in power or not. The pros and cons of keeping him there or removing him probably cancelled each other out.

As for his "uses", well it was either a secular dictator like Saddam or a Mullah run Iraq as a puppet of Iran. That would bring Iran to the gates of the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia. Hardly ideal, particularly given the potential of disruption to oil supplies. But I suppose many people wouldn't be too bothered with a collapse in oil supply to the west.

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

slovakchick wrote:

Link proof

Proof of what? You brought them into it. What point are you trying to make?

They were dictators who lead the ottaman empire to genocide
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/historysshadow.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/remembering-the-armenian-genocide-the-young-turks-the-three-pashas-and-erdogans-slide-to-dictatorship/amp/
Show me your proof that they were not dictators at the very least

nacho libre

Christy42 wrote: »

Ummm I was responding to someone who was saying it was a false flag attack and now you say the bone of contention was not about it being a false flag attack?

No, because it wasn't like operation northwood, where America contemplated carrying out an an attack in Chicago to blame on the Cubans as a pretext to invade Cuba. Nor other false flags that actually did go beyond the contemplation stage.

The Russians stated the Syrians carried out an airstrike on a suspected rebel site, they dispute the narrative that it was an intentional attack on civilians. So it's not accurate to describe it as a false flag. This however does not preclude those in America who want regime change , along with their proxies on the ground in Syria, of lying to suit their own agenda about what happened.
As i said in the previous post if you were a rebel leader or member of the HNC you would have been dismayed by Tillerson's comments a couple of weeks ago that getting rid of Assad was not their priority anymore. This incident was certainly good timing if you wanted that position re- examined.
Perhaps it is as the Americans say.

I am unsure of what exactly happened, but maybe you and others are privy to classified material the rest of us don't have access to, which means you don't need to wait for a proper investigation to be carried out to determine exactly what happened. Also you know that American Governments have never lied in the past before to further their geo-political aims, so it makes sense to believe what they say without question.

Zebra3

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Just the best bits. :pac:

First Up

slovakchick wrote: »

They were dictators who lead the ottaman empire to genocide
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/historysshadow.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/remembering-the-armenian-genocide-the-young-turks-the-three-pashas-and-erdogans-slide-to-dictatorship/amp/
Show me your proof that they were not dictators at the very least

The Ottoman Empire lasted for nearly five centuries and covered the Balkans, much else of Eastern Europe, The Levant, North Africa and parts of Arabia. It brought the rule of law, education and commerce and most of it was self-governing. The three Pashas coincided with the last days of the Empire, including Turkey's disastrous entry into WW1.

The rights and wrongs of the Armenian genocide can be debated but that has little to do with the carve-up of the Ottoman or British empires.

slovakchick

First Up wrote: »

slovakchick wrote: »

They were dictators who lead the ottaman empire to genocide
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/historysshadow.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/remembering-the-armenian-genocide-the-young-turks-the-three-pashas-and-erdogans-slide-to-dictatorship/amp/
Show me your proof that they were not dictators at the very least

The Ottoman Empire lasted for nearly five centuries and covered the Balkans, much else of Eastern Europe, The Levant, North Africa and parts of Arabia. It brought the rule of law, education and commerce and most of it was self-governing. The three Pashas coincided with the last days of the Empire, including Turkey's disastrous entry into WW1.

The rights and wrongs of the Armenian genocide can be debated but that has little to do with the carve-up of the Ottoman or British empires.

I rest my case folks, he's yours now

First Up

slovakchick wrote:

I rest my case folks, he's yours now

You shouldn't give up so easily. With a bit of effort and some study of history you could still make a go of it.

Hande hoche!

Starting to feel sorry for Sean Spicer.

First Up

Hande hoche! wrote:

Starting to feel sorry for Sean Spicer.

He's good value alright! Enjoy while it lasts - mightn't be much longer.

Gatling

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Starting to feel sorry for Sean Spicer.

You get the feeling worse is to come from him

Mutant z

slovakchick wrote: »

the country already looks pretty stony to me:P

Whatever you may think of Assad at least he is secular, where women have rights, and everyone has religious freedom, which is more can be said about the jihadis opposition which the USA and Uk have been supporting.

ilkhanid

srsly78 wrote: »

And how effective was it? Not as effective as dropping normal bombs - which is why it hardly ever gets used. Ok you found an exceptional case, but look at any major war. Why did neither side bother using in ww2?

The only situations it might be effective in is enclosed spaces or underground, subways etc.

The gas attack at Halabja killed between 3 and 5 thousand people. That sounds pretty efficient to me.

First Up wrote: »

Mostly before they were countries created for the convenience of colonial powers and oil companies.

Would that in the time of the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Tulunids, or the Ottomans? I believe that Syria had something like three years of democratic rule between 1946 and 1949. The rest of the time it's been coup after coup after coup after....
So, no shortage of 'Strongmen'

Ryan Skinny Rugby wrote: »

A perfect example is sadam Hussein. All was reasonably well in the country until.the Americans went in and destroyed the country.

You have a strange definition of "reasonably well"

Mass murder in Abu Ghraib prison- 4 000 dead.
Anfal campaign against Kurds 1986-1989-1 million displaced. Thousands of villages destroyed. 50 000 to 100 000 (The Kurds claim 180 000) dead. Assyrian Christians also murdered.
War with Iran-105 000 to 200 000 dead.
First Gulf War-3000 civilian dead. 20-26 000 military dead.
Suppression of 1991 Kurdish and Shia uprisings. Tens of thousands of dead, many mass graves found.
To any reasonable person that looks like a hell-hole. It makes early Nazi Germany and the USSR after 1945 look like pleasant places.

Zebra3 wrote: »

That'll be of great consolation to the thousands who were slaughtered by US-backed Iraq.

Oh? So it appears that things were'nt going "reasonably well" in Iraq, after all, In any case isn;t this the USSR/GDR/Poland-backed Iraq, You forgot that did you?

Shurimgreat wrote: »

...most of the lefties around here'.....care much more about using every stick available to beat America which leads them taking some very inconsistent positions as well as siding with some very unsavoury dictators.

First Up wrote: »

I am no lefty but I recognise hypocricy wherever I see it. The US has its own long history of siding with unsavoury dictators.

No side, left or right have clean hands. So called democrats and socialists supported savage despots. The USA and many of it's allies turned a blind-eye to muderous dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist. Many on the left lionised Stalin, Mao and other Communist dictators.

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

But he WAS left in power. He could easily have been removed in 1990 during the First Gulf War. Instead he was seen as a counter to Iranian interests, had his uses and was allowed to remain in power for another 13 years.

Somehow I doubt that you'd have been pleased with that outcome had it happened.......

nacho libre

ilkhanid wrote: »

T





No side, left or right have clean hands. So called democrats and socialists supported savage despots. The USA and many of it's allies turned a blind-eye to muderous dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist. Many on the left lionised Stalin, Mao and other Communist dictators.


.

Exactly.
This is what I've been saying all along. The uncomfortable truth is there are no good guys, just the competing interests of leading nations. The blinkered hard right will have you believe in a simplistic narrative of good v evil.
The reality is there are superpowers, or those who aspire to be, with competing interests. The hard right defend their position on the basis that America is a benign empire by historical comparison, and the alternative is far worse.

Christy42

nacho libre wrote: »

No, because it wasn't like operation northwood, where America contemplated carrying out an an attack in Chicago to blame on the Cubans as a pretext to invade Cuba. Nor other false flags that actually did go beyond the contemplation stage.

The Russians stated the Syrians carried out an airstrike on a suspected rebel site, they dispute the narrative that it was an intentional attack on civilians. So it's not accurate to describe it as a false flag. This however does not preclude those in America who want regime change , along with their proxies on the ground in Syria, of lying to suit their own agenda about what happened.
As i said in the previous post if you were a rebel leader or member of the HNC you would have been dismayed by Tillerson's comments a couple of weeks ago that getting rid of Assad was not their priority anymore. This incident was certainly good timing if you wanted that position re- examined.
Perhaps it is as the Americans say.

I am unsure of what exactly happened, but maybe you and others are privy to classified material the rest of us don't have access to, which means you don't need to wait for a proper investigation to be carried out to determine exactly what happened. Also you know that American Governments have never lied in the past before to further their geo-political aims, so it makes sense to believe what they say without question.

Um maybe you would be better off arguing with the posters saying it was a false flag attack instead of having a go at my posts that correct those posters.

First Up

ilkhanid wrote:

Would that in the time of the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Tulunids, or the Ottomans? I believe that Syria had something like three years of democratic rule between 1946 and 1949. The rest of the time it's been coup after coup after coup after.... So, no shortage of 'Strongmen'

The nation state that we now take as normal is a fairly recent thing.

Over the past couple of thousand years there have been dozens of kingdoms, city states and tribal areas across the region known as the Levant or Mesopotamia (and literally thousands across Africa.)

They sometimes cracked each others' heads but they also co-existed - trading, sharing access to water, allowing grazing rights and so on.

This is how Europe, Asia, South America and Africa also evolved, with borders based mostly on ethnicity, with a few wars settling the details.

The colonials didn't bother with such niceties - they just rolled in, took control and extracted as much wealth as they could.

The problems we see today started when they left. The Middle East was carved up when the Ottoman empire collapsed and the British withdrew. Africa went through the same process after WW2. Borders were placed where it suited the interests of the colonials and the locals were left to work it out between themselves

The results are there to be seen. The choice is usually a strongman or chaos and we have had plenty of both.

nacho libre

Christy42 wrote: »

Um maybe you would be better off arguing with the posters saying it was a false flag attack instead of having a go at my posts that correct those posters.

I partly agree with your previous post, but I am also challenging your certainty as to what exactly happened. That's why i replied to you. I don't see the problem with that.

Christy42

nacho libre wrote: »

I partly agree with your previous post, but I am also challenging your certainty as to what exactly happened. That's why i replied to you. I don't see the problem with that.

It read (or very possibly) I misread your initial reply to me as being critical of me denying it was a false flag (as in you saying it was not something in contention, not that you have said it was a false flag). Either way it seems to be a miscommunication between us that has been settled.

Am I 100% certain? No I am not. However with no serious voices of dissent? Not the French or the Germans who opposed US involvement in Iraq. I will never have 100% proof on many international events, but it is as close to being accepted amongst all parties as is possible given the politics. There is plenty of reason for Assad to have done it little risk. Even with the reply it does not seem to be have been a high cost. Certainly more than enough evidence for me to refrain from attacking the US response over the incident (though as many have said they are largely hypocrites given other unrelated issues).

Do I feel Trump acted too quickly? Certainly. He should have gotten more agreement amongst the senate and various UN powers (Russia were always going to veto). However acting rashly does not always mean incorrectly, as it seems very likely he has picked the right option.

Gatling

So russia vetoed a UN investigation and condemnation of last weeks chemical weapons attack in Syria ,

It would almost be funny if it wasn't true

gitzy16v

Gatling wrote: »

So russia vetoed a UN investigation and condemnation of last weeks chemical weapons attack in Syria ,

It would almost be funny if it wasn't true

Throw up a link there please ol pal...let us all have a read...thanks

Gatling

gitzy16v wrote: »

Throw up a link there please ol pal...let us all have a read...thanks

So as i said previously the UN are useless


http://news.sky.com/story/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-on-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-10834944

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17E2LK

gitzy16v

Gatling wrote: »

So as i said previously the UN are useless


http://news.sky.com/story/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-on-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-10834944

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17E2LK

Good man...thanks

Yourself isit

First Up wrote: »

The nation state that we now take as normal is a fairly recent thing.

Over the past couple of thousand years there have been dozens of kingdoms, city states and tribal areas across the region known as the Levant or Mesopotamia (and literally thousands across Africa.)

They sometimes cracked each others' heads but they also co-existed - trading, sharing access to water, allowing grazing rights and so on.

This is how Europe, Asia, South America and Africa also evolved, with borders based mostly on ethnicity, with a few wars settling the details.

The colonials didn't bother with such niceties - they just rolled in, took control and extracted as much wealth as they could.

The problems we see today started when they left. The Middle East was carved up when the Ottoman empire collapsed and the British withdrew. Africa went through the same process after WW2. Borders were placed where it suited the interests of the colonials and the locals were left to work it out between themselves

The results are there to be seen. The choice is usually a strongman or chaos and we have had plenty of both.

Nation states may be new but nations aren't.

Cheerful Spring

Gatling wrote: »

So russia vetoed a UN investigation and condemnation of last weeks chemical weapons attack in Syria ,

It would almost be funny if it wasn't true

Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Vladimir Safronkov, said the draft resolution laid blame prior to an independent investigation.

"I'm amazed that this was the conclusion. No one has yet visited the site of the crime. How do you know that?" he said.

He said the U.S. attack on the Syrian air base "was carried out in violation of international norms."

Yourself isit

Gatling wrote: »

So as i said previously the UN are useless


http://news.sky.com/story/russia-vetoes-un-resolution-on-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-10834944

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN17E2LK

Unless the UN follow the US party line they are useless?

I agree however that the security council needs to go.

Luggnuts

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'd say Bush Snr. was of the view there was nothing to replace him with. Oddly enough many people now agree with him. I don't think it mattered if Saddam was removed in 2003 or 1990, its what came next was the big question. The Americans and Allies (lets not forget the First Gulf War was a huge multilateral operation) would have to be prepared to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and set up some kind of government that had widespread support. Not so easy in Iraq. The probability of Civil War would have been high.

This is not to say I agree with what the Americans did with Iraq. I'm fairly neutral on whether Saddam should have been kept in power or not. The pros and cons of keeping him there or removing him probably cancelled each other out.

As for his "uses", well it was either a secular dictator like Saddam or a Mullah run Iraq as a puppet of Iran. That would bring Iran to the gates of the Gulf States including Saudi Arabia. Hardly ideal, particularly given the potential of disruption to oil supplies. But I suppose many people wouldn't be too bothered with a collapse in oil supply to the west.

Are you fine with a government or even a family determining who can remain in power around the world? And if so how would you deal with those who might not agree with such a concept?