Syria Again

Fiery mutant

You too Elmer, who would you believe, give some nationalities who wouldn't be part of 'The Agenda'?

Yourself isit

Christy42 wrote: »

If an argument can't be defended it can't be very good. People saying Assad would never have chemical weapons due to world response or in viability of those weapons keep forgetting he very much did have those weapons a few years and thought them worthwhile then (when they were decommissioned.

Therefore he sees some use in them and the he wouldn't do it argument is flawed.

I tend to have to parse your posts for hidden meaning.

I think you are saying that assad used chemical weapons before so why not now? The reasons have been articulated before. First, Syria was declared clean of chemical weapons years ago. Second the supposed attack in 2013 nearly led to an invasion, or an attack by the US. Obama pulled out of the action because he was told the intelligence wasn't a slam dunk. Hence assad knew the price of chemical weapons. Thirdly the US had reversed it's policy on regime change and by using chemical weapons assad clearly endangered that.

Compared to that logic, on motives at least, TEAM AMERICA got nothing.

Yourself isit

Fiery mutant wrote: »

So who should we trust el diablo? Give us a recommendation of who's analysis you would believe?

Theodore Postel from MIT

Christy42

Yourself isit wrote: »

I tend to have to parse your posts for hidden meaning.

I think you are saying that assad used chemical weapons before so why not now? The reasons have been articulated before. First, Syria was declared clean of chemical weapons years ago. Second the supposed attack in 2013 nearly led to an invasion, or an attack by the US. Obama pulled out of the action because he was told the intelligence wasn't a slam dunk. Hence assad knew the price of chemical weapons. Thirdly the US had reversed it's policy on regime change and by using chemical weapons assad clearly endangered that.

Compared to that logic, on motives at least, TEAM AMERICA got nothing.

Ummm. I posted my argument in plain English. First I am arguing about whether Assad would have used these weapons so I can see the back of the silly reasoning.

Second there were no serious repercussions the first time when there was a president far more hostile to him in charge. He knew the price he paid the first time which was nothing.

Third the reversed policy and Trump trying to play pally at the time with Putin must have made any repercussions seem incredibly unlikely. I mean to go this direction Trump had to do a load of 180s on his previous policies. Even then he still does not seem to have lost a massive amount from using the weapons.

Gatling

Christy42 wrote: »

Ummm. I posted my argument in plain English. First I am arguing about whether Assad would have used these weapons so I can see the back of the silly reasoning.

Second there were no serious repercussions the first time when there was a president far more hostile to him in charge. He knew the price he paid the first time which was nothing.

Third the reversed policy and Trump trying to play pally at the time with Putin must have made any repercussions seem incredibly unlikely. I mean to go this direction Trump had to do a load of 180s on his previous policies. Even then he still does not seem to have lost a massive amount from using the weapons.

Have you noticed how team America keeps getting bandied around by the pro Assad/putin crowd

Fiery mutant

Yourself isit wrote: »

Theodore Postel from MIT

So someone who has consistently went against the US government, is someone you want to lead an independent investigation?

No bias there no?

So who then is lying? Postel says there is no way that munition was dropped from a plane, whereas Assad says it was an air strike by the US?

Edit: I went to read his 14 page report on the incident, but as soon as I noticed he dated it 4 days into the future, I knew it would be a waste of time.

Shurimgreat

Yourself isit wrote: »

I tend to have to parse your posts for hidden meaning.

I think you are saying that assad used chemical weapons before so why not now? The reasons have been articulated before. First, Syria was declared clean of chemical weapons years ago. Second the supposed attack in 2013 nearly led to an invasion, or an attack by the US. Obama pulled out of the action because he was told the intelligence wasn't a slam dunk. Hence assad knew the price of chemical weapons. Thirdly the US had reversed it's policy on regime change and by using chemical weapons assad clearly endangered that.

Compared to that logic, on motives at least, TEAM AMERICA got nothing.

Have you even a single link or source to support any of this or did you just make it up?

Dubh Linn

I think that Syria needs to be invaded by somebody before it just sinks into the ground...

Elmer Blooker

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I think that Syria needs to be invaded by somebody before it just sinks into the ground...

So you don't consider the thousands of jihadist mercenaries from dozens of different countries to be an invasion?

Hande hoche!

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I think that Syria needs to be invaded by somebody before it just sinks into the ground...

The Turks gave it a shot.

Dubh Linn

I'm saying that the country is in a total state of absolute ruin, so invading it wouldn't make much of a huge difference tbh, but it could help resolve a lot of problems.

First Up

Dubh Linn wrote:

I'm saying that the country is in a total state of absolute ruin, so invading it wouldn't make much of a huge difference tbh, but it could help resolve a lot of problems.

Such as?

el diablo

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I'm saying that the country is in a total state of absolute ruin, so invading it wouldn't make much of a huge difference tbh, but it could help resolve a lot of problems.

Like it has in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Dubh Linn

In Afghanistan, they toppled the Taliban regime and drove out al-Qaeda. It subsequently culminated in the special forces tracking down bin Laden in Pakistan and putting a bullet in his head.

In Libya, they toppled the Gaddafi dictatorship and when they left, I'll admit, things only got 20 times worse.

In Iraq, they toppled the scourge of Saddam Hussein and they, well, made a right cock up of the country after that. Now, ISIS is continuing to grow in Iraq, with Mosul and all that.

Invading Syria and toppling Assad, whilst helping the rebels and attempting to defeat IS, is, imo worth a shot if I'm honest.

What do you think?

First Up

Dubh Linn wrote:

What do you think?

I think you need to think about it a bit more.

Dubh Linn

First Up wrote: »

I think you need to think about it a bit more.

In what sense or way?

First Up

Dubh Linn wrote:

In what sense or way?

What outcome do you expect or hope for, beyond removing Assad?

What do think will (or want to) happen next?

Dubh Linn

They will defeat IS, rescue Aleppo and try to rebuild the country?

First Up

Dubh Linn wrote:

They will defeat IS, rescue Aleppo and try to rebuild the country?

How?

el diablo

Dubh Linn wrote: »

Invading Syria and toppling Assad, whilst helping the rebels and attempting to defeat IS, is, imo worth a shot if I'm honest.

What do you think?

Dubh Linn wrote: »

They will defeat IS, rescue Aleppo and try to rebuild the country?

All very idealistic. And they're not rebels. They're terrorists that have been armed, trained and funded by the US and their allies.

Vital Transformation

"At least 1,782 civilians were allegedly killed by coalition airstrikes in March alone, according to Airwars - numbers the research organization says are comparable to the deadliest period of Russias 2016 air campaign in Syria."

https://news.vice.com/story/the-us-led-coalition-killed-a-staggering-number-of-civilians-in-march-monitor-reports

First Up

el diablo wrote:

All very idealistic. And they're not rebels. They're terrorists that have been armed, trained and funded by the US and their allies.

The opposition to Assad is a very mixed bag. It includes some very worthy and articulate types (the sort that CNN and the BBC like to interview) but they represent a small part of the (at least) eight factions looking to take over.

Some are backed by the US, some by others in the West, some by Russia, some by Iran, some by Turkey, some by Saudi. Some are even backed by Syrians.

An invasion and toppling of Assad will clear that up no end.

Shurimgreat

Dubh Linn wrote: »

I think that Syria needs to be invaded by somebody before it just sinks into the ground...

I think you will find that Assad is the good guy around here and the unarmed men, women and child victims of his chemical weapons and barrel bombs are the bad guys.

First Up

Shurimgreat wrote:

I think you will find that Assad is the good guy around here and the unarmed men, women and child victims of his chemical weapons and barrel bombs are the bad guys.

No, its finding the good guys that might replace him that is the problem.

You don't see that whole theory that Israel was the basket case of the ME and Syria the moderate regime standing up to the Yanks any more. It was kinda popular in the 90s and 00s.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

You don't see that whole theory that Israel was the basket case of the ME and Syria the moderate regime standing up to the Yanks any more. It was kinda popular in the 90s and 00s.

Yes, hilarious. Another theory knocking around in those days was that the US was going to bomb the Middle East into democracy.

We are much smarter now.

ilkhanid

What the Democratic countries didn't notice was that Democracy means in the Middle East (and much of Africa and other places )is different to what it means here. The whole co-operation, loyal opposition, parliamentary supervision etc etc stuff doesn't count there. It's 'Winner takes all, win the election by fair means or foul,stuff the opposition,change the rules of the game while you're in office to keep the other side out of power in perpetuity,appoint loyal insiders to key posts in security agencies and use the financial ministries to plunder as much of state funds as you can lay your paws on while you're still in power'.
As long as Majoritarianism is the ethic in the ME, as the only alternative to despotism,then the place is f****d.

Christy42

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you will find that Assad is the good guy around here and the unarmed men, women and child victims of his chemical weapons and barrel bombs are the bad guys.

No I do accept that replacing him is am issue even if he is a horrific human being who gassed his own people.

Granted another point that has not been considered is could Assad rule his country any more? Even if he should win the war how long could he keep it together before the next civil war? Could he be the strongman some want him to be when many will still have memories like the gassing fresh in their minds?

First Up

ilkhanid wrote:

What the Democratic countries didn't notice was that Democracy means in the Middle East (and much of Africa and other places )is different to what it means here. The whole co-operation, loyal opposition, parliamentary supervision etc etc stuff doesn't count there. It's 'Winner takes all, win the election by fair means or foul,stuff the opposition,change the rules of the game while you're in office to keep the other side out of power in perpetuity,appoint loyal insiders to key posts in security agencies and use the financial ministries to plunder as much of state funds as you can lay your paws on while you're still in power'. As long as Majoritarianism is the ethic in the ME, as the only alternative to despotism,then the place is f****d.

ilkhanid wrote:

As long as Majoritarianism is the ethic in the ME, as the only alternative to despotism,then the place is f****d.

Its not majorityism; its tribalism and those societies (and in parts of Africa and parts of the Balkans) work best when tribes/clans/ethnic/religious groups are able to operate autonomously.

Our simplistic version of democracy doesn't work and the sooner that is recognised the sooner some solutions might be found.

rwbug

More horrific images from Syria today after rebels targeted buses carrying Assad supporting civilians from besieged villages near Idlib to Assad held areas. They had been promised safe passage as part of an agreement which also allowed besieged rebel supporting civilians safe passage to rebel held areas.