Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

esteve · 11-09-2013 05:23PM

realweirdo wrote: »

White phosphorous is not part of the convention. Technically Israel didn't break any international laws.

Goldstone Report

esteve · 11-09-2013 05:24PM

realweirdo wrote: »

Anyways you are very good with the whataboutery...to the point where you seem to think its ok for Assad to use sarin because Israel once used white phosphorus.

Strawman..his point was quite clear, reread the posts.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:26PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Israel also used them in broad daylight why is the US not planning strategic air strikes against them? Israel have also committed war crimes against the Palestinian people yet the US turns a blind eye to them. Why is it ok for Israel to commit these crimes but not anyone else?

The US used nuclear weapons in the second world war. Why isn't it obileterating itself?

Your logic, when extended, falls down.

Now. let us say the US decides to take on the role you now appear to have suggested - that of world policeman. Who decides who they take action against? If a policeman comes along and sees two people fighting, he sometimes arrests both, sometimes arrests neither and sometimes arrests one or the other, depending on his judgement. Onlookers may think he is being unfair or missing something depending on which action he takes, but generally they accept his judgement.

In encouraging the US to take on the role of world policeman, which is what your post suggests, the inevitable conclusion of that is that you will have to accept the US judgement of who is the bad guy.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:29PM

esteve wrote: »

Goldstone Report

Yawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14]

Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 05:31PM

Godge wrote: »

The US used nuclear weapons in the second world war. Why isn't it obileterating itself?

Your logic, when extended, falls down.

Now. let us say the US decides to take on the role you now appear to have suggested - that of world policeman. Who decides who they take action against? If a policeman comes along and sees two people fighting, he sometimes arrests both, sometimes arrests neither and sometimes arrests one or the other, depending on his judgement. Onlookers may think he is being unfair or missing something depending on which action he takes, but generally they accept his judgement.

In encouraging the US to take on the role of world policeman, which is what your post suggests, the inevitable conclusion of that is that you will have to accept the US judgement of who is the bad guy.

I don't want the US to act as world police it's the US itself that is trying to push itself into that position.

esteve · 11-09-2013 05:32PM

Godge wrote: »

In encouraging the US to take on the role of world policeman, which is what your post suggests, the inevitable conclusion of that is that you will have to accept the US judgement of who is the bad guy.

He never once suggested this, he asked a simple question that nobody will answer, but instead it has been turned, twisted and then sent right back at him. It was a simple question. Can anyone actually answer it. If the US care about the use of chemical weapons, why didnt they act against Israel as per the findings of the Goldstone report, instead they gave them 30 billion in military support? Stop avoiding the question.

You are right though, Israel has nothing to do with Syria, but how they are treated by the US does!

esteve · 11-09-2013 05:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Yawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14]

Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?

Yawn, whats your point?

Still no conclusive proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons, it may have been a rogue general. I dont want to make this about Israel, but there are countless human rights violations that the US ignore. Same goes for numerous US allies in the middle east, and the US ignore these. As do Russia etc, but we all know how they really are, but some people watch too many American movies and are absolutely blinded by some ridiculous rhetoric.

bumper234 · 11-09-2013 05:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Yawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14]

!Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?

and there is no way this happened in Syria? It has been claimed MANY times that this could be the actions of a rogue commander and that the government did not know about it.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:39PM

esteve wrote: »

He never once suggested this, he asked a simple question that nobody will answer, but instead it has been turned, twisted and then sent right back at him. It was a simple question. Can anyone actually answer it. If the US care about the use of chemical weapons, why didnt they act against Israel as per the findings of the Goldstone report, instead they gave them 30 billion in military support? Stop avoiding the question.

You are right though, Israel has nothing to do with Syria, but how they are treated by the US does!

Thank God they didn't as Goldstone later retracted his accusations against Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reconsidering-the-goldstone-report-on-israel-and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html

In asking the question, it is like asking why the police acted against one burglar and not the other. The answer is complicated but simple. The individual circumstances of the burglaries were different and the judgement of the police was different given the individual circumstances.

The point I am making is that if you want someone to judge and punish wrongdoers, you must trust their judgement on the wrongdoer, not yours. It is why judges can reject a jury verdict in certain circumstances and can also decide the punishment. For all you know, the US may share your conclusion that the Israeli government should have been punished but decided that the appropriate punishment was a diplomatic word in the ear while in the Syrian case it is something else.

You can't have a police force to enforce mob rule.

esteve · 11-09-2013 05:45PM

Godge wrote: »

The point I am making is that if you want someone to judge and punish wrongdoers, you must trust their judgement on the wrongdoer, not yours. It is why judges can reject a jury verdict in certain circumstances and can also decide the punishment. For all you know, the US may share your conclusion that the Israeli government should have been punished but decided that the appropriate punishment was a diplomatic word in the ear while in the Syrian case it is something else.

.

A diplomatic word plus continued military support of billions per year. Dont get me wrong, im as much anti-american as i am anti-russian, as i am anti superpowers who use countries and people to fight proxy wars in order to protect their own self interests. The fact is though, i dont see much difference between the US and Russia in this regard, while some people on here have this warped view of the US as being some shining knight. I for one have no idea where this image can come from, because if you look at the facts and history, it is impossible to come to such a conclusion. I guess their opinion is based on propoganda, blind rhetoric, and blissful ignorance.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:52PM

esteve wrote: »

Yawn, whats your point?

Still no conclusive proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons, it may have been a rogue general. I dont want to make this about Israel, but there are countless human rights violations that the US ignore. Same goes for numerous US allies in the middle east, and the US ignore these. As do Russia etc, but we all know how they really are, but some people watch too many American movies and are absolutely blinded by some ridiculous rhetoric.

bumper234 wrote: »

and there is no way this happened in Syria? It has been claimed MANY times that this could be the actions of a rogue commander and that the government did not know about it.

Look through my post history on this subject, I have never said that the US (or anyone else) should take unilateral action against Syria. What I have pointed out is

(1) I have highlighted the hypocrisy of accusing the US without evidence yet excusing Syria without evidence.
(2) I have highlighted the hypocrisy of calling for the US to act as a judge against Israel and punish it yet not according to the US the rights of a judge to decide the appropriate punishment or not
(3) I have highlighted the lack of any evidence or proof that there was illegal use of white phosphorous in Iraq.

The thing is, what annoys me most in this thread is that the rabid knee-jerk anti-Americanism (look at what the US did in X or Y) displayed by so many ruins any prospect of rational discussion on what the appropriate response to the events in Syria are.

And judging by recent reports

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0911/473478-obama-vows-to-explore-diplomatic-route-on-syria/

"US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic initiative from Russia over Syria's chemical weapons." even though "UN human rights investigators have said Syrian government forces and opposition forces have committed war crimes.
They said government forces had massacred civilians, bombed hospitals and committed other war crimes in widespread attacks to recapture territory from rebels this year."

now that the evidence is in, maybe we should all consider what to do now.

Clearly there is now an onus on the UN to take appropriate action against the Syrian Government for their war crimes. That may mean UN-endorsed military action against the regime if the diplomatic efforts fail to end the regime but if the UN fails to endorse military action at that time, the blame for any further war crimes will fall on those (Russia, China) who veto such action.

Seaneh · 11-09-2013 05:54PM

Godge wrote: »

Yawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict

On 1 April 2011, Goldstone retracted his claim that it was Israeli government policy to deliberately target citizens, saying "While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."[14]

Rogue soldiers rather than government policy?

I love how you managed to leave the rest of that paragraph from the wiki article out of your retort.

The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict".

So basically one of 4 people who were involved in the mission changed their position with the other 3 (including our own Colonel Desmond Travers) rejecting his reassessment as wrong.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:56PM

esteve wrote: »

A diplomatic word plus continued military support of billions per year. Dont get me wrong, im as much anti-american as i am anti-russian, as i am anti superpowers who use countries and people to fight proxy wars in order to protect their own self interests. The fact is though, i dont see much difference between the US and Russia in this regard, while some people on here have this warped view of the US as being some shining knight. I for one have no idea where this image can come from, because if you look at the facts and history, it is impossible to come to such a conclusion. I guess their opinion is based on propoganda, blind rhetoric, and blissful ignorance.

I greatly admire many aspects of America but there are some, particularly in the treatment of labour, aspects (only aspects) of its foreign policy and the pro-life movement that I dislike. Overall though, it is a country to be admired.

By contrast, Russia, with its anti-women, homophobic, corrupt enrichment of oligarchs and more environmental destruction than anyone except China together with a foreign policy that routinely props up totalitarian regimes is not a country to be admired in any way. The resolve of its people through decades of oppression is to be admired as is their deep culture but the Russian state is not a pleasant one at all.

Godge · 11-09-2013 05:57PM

Seaneh wrote: »

I love how you managed to leave the rest of that paragraph from the wiki article out of your retort.

The other principal authors of the UN report, Hina Jilani, Christine Chinkin and Desmond Travers, have rejected Goldstone's reassessment arguing that there is "no justification for any demand or expectation for reconsideration of the report as nothing of substance has appeared that would in anyway change the context, findings or conclusions of that report with respect to any of the parties to the Gaza conflict".

So basically one of 4 people who were involved in the mission changed their position with the other 3 (including our own Colonel Desmond Travers) rejecting his reassessment as wrong.

It is known as the Goldstone Report not the Travers Report.

esteve · 11-09-2013 06:22PM

Godge wrote: »

, corrupt enrichment of oligarchs and more environmental destruction than anyone except China together with a foreign policy that routinely props up totalitarian regimes is not a country to be admired in any way.

This is the thing, the US do all of the above but people seem to turn a blind eye to it as perhaps they do it more cleverly, more discreetly. They have propped up and supported endless regimes and dictators e.g. they were totally involved with Suharto in Indonesia who killed nearly one million people from East Timor, a quarter of their nation, one of the worst genocides since WWII. The word oligarchs is pure semantics, in the US they are called successful capitalists and they exist just as much as in Russia. The US are opening up the Artic for oil exploitation, Alaska also, they have no fixed legislation or plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They may be ahead on environmental issues, but only just.

I am sorry but facts tell us that the US are as bad as Russia in what you mentioned, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but a country to be admired. How can you admire their actions over the last ten years with Iraq and Afghanistan? Please ignore their blind rhetoric on liberty and democracy and focus on facts, they are much more revealing.

Godge · 11-09-2013 06:32PM

esteve wrote: »

This is the thing, the US do all of the above but people seem to turn a blind eye to it as perhaps they do it more cleverly, more discreetly. They have propped up and supported endless regimes and dictators e.g. they were totally involved with Suharto in Indonesia who killed nearly one million people from East Timor, a quarter of their nation, one of the worst genocides since WWII. The word oligarchs is pure semantics, in the US they are called successful capitalists and they exist just as much as in Russia. The US are opening up the Artic for oil exploitation, Alaska also, they have no fixed legislation or plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption. They may be ahead on environmental issues, but only just.

I am sorry but facts tell us that the US are as bad as Russia in what you mentioned, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but a country to be admired. How can you admire their actions over the last ten years with Iraq and Afghanistan? Please ignore their blind rhetoric on liberty and democracy and focus on facts, they are much more revealing.

I have been to both countries. My views are not based on long-distance viewing.

I did not say that America was an angel, I did not say that I agreed with all aspects of their foreign policy, however, I will repeat myself and say that the facts of the matter are that America is a much better, freer, equal country to live in than Russia. It has many things that it can be proud of. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then I am sorry for you. That does not mean that America can escape criticism.

Mr.Micro · 11-09-2013 08:29PM

Godge wrote: »

I have been to both countries. My views are not based on long-distance viewing.

I did not say that America was an angel, I did not say that I agreed with all aspects of their foreign policy, however, I will repeat myself and say that the facts of the matter are that America is a much better, freer, equal country to live in than Russia. It has many things that it can be proud of. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then I am sorry for you. That does not mean that America can escape criticism.

That is true what you say, compared to Russia. The US has many faults, but I am not sure that it extends the same equalities abroad. At home it is all as you say, but away from home it's a bit of a devil and unpredictable. It certainly has lost it's always the good guy image and is not seen as altruistic anymore but as a superpower with imperialist intentions, or just self serving.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 09:01PM

realweirdo wrote: »

What exactly is your point? You seem to be arguing that every country should be allowed own WMD and use them on their own people whenever they want or whenever they get out of line since its within their own borders. That seems to be the gist of a lot of your posts.

You're taking this anti americanism a bit far to be honest and like most anti americans you tie yourself in such knots that you end up supporting people like Assad, whether you mean to or not.

Oh dear...

How in the name of christ could anyone deduce that from what I've written.

Have I said ANY such thing?

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 09:08PM

Godge wrote: »

So you dislike innuendo and accusations and prefer facts.

Innuendo

Accusations???

"On November 30, 2005, General Peter Pace stated that white phosphorus munitions were a "legitimate tool of the military" used to illuminate targets and create smokescreens, saying "It is not a chemical weapon. It is an incendiary. And it is well within the law of war to use those weapons as they're being used, for marking and for screening"

Which is it?

(1) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against the US) are allowed?
(2) Unsubstantiated allegations unproven in law (against Assad) are not allowed?

Nothing in this post is actually worth a reply.

Godge · 11-09-2013 10:06PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing in this post is actually worth a reply.

The last refuge of those with nothing to say

Godge · 11-09-2013 10:11PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That is true what you say, compared to Russia. The US has many faults, but I am not sure that it extends the same equalities abroad. At home it is all as you say, but away from home it's a bit of a devil and unpredictable. It certainly has lost it's always the good guy image and is not seen as altruistic anymore but as a superpower with imperialist intentions, or just self serving.

What about Ireland?

We stood idly by while the Second World War waged on, we stood idly by while we allowed Argentine aggression to take the Falklands and we continually refuse to take sides against evil regimes and take our part in the defence of our European neighbours.

We are the kettle to the American's pot.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 10:13PM

Godge wrote: »

The last refuge of those with nothing to say

No, a perfectly valid response to a rather silly post that didn't contain anything worth replying to.

Godge · 11-09-2013 10:22PM

Tony EH wrote: »

No, a perfectly valid response to a rather silly post that didn't contain anything worth replying to.

I am sorry, but I clearly referenced your posts where you were happy to judge the Americans based on innuendo and unsubstantiated allegation but were also happy to say that the Syrians shouldn't be condemned on the same basis.

The fact that you are unable to defend that hypocrisy is proof that I was right to point it out.

Tony EH · 11-09-2013 10:25PM

No. You posted some silly remarks and a quote from a general who operates in a military unit that used/uses WP in its arsenal.

There was nothing worth replying to.

If you want a discussion, make some sensible points for someone to counter.

realweirdo · 11-09-2013 10:28PM

esteve wrote: »

Yawn, whats your point?

Still no conclusive proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons, it may have been a rogue general. I dont want to make this about Israel, but there are countless human rights violations that the US ignore. Same goes for numerous US allies in the middle east, and the US ignore these. As do Russia etc, but we all know how they really are, but some people watch too many American movies and are absolutely blinded by some ridiculous rhetoric.

Assad or rogue general does it matter? All generals are culpible to their leader or president.

There is no evidence that this rogue general has been in any way reprimanded.

As Dwight Eisenhower said, "the buck stops here".

And in this case the buck stops at Assad.

I personally think nothing happens in Syria without Assad's say so, but that's my opinion for what its worth.

Either way the Syrian's chemical weapons stockpile needs to be put beyond use. And not have a cat and mouse game with UN inspectors that goes on for more than a decade as happened with Saddam.

K-9 · 12-09-2013 01:58AM

Tony EH wrote: »

Nothing in this post is actually worth a reply.

Tony EH wrote: »

No, a perfectly valid response to a rather silly post that didn't contain anything worth replying to.

Tony EH wrote: »

No. You posted some silly remarks and a quote from a general who operates in a military unit that used/uses WP in its arsenal.

There was nothing worth replying to.

If you want a discussion, make some sensible points for someone to counter.

Mod:

You've been warned about glib replies before, if something isn't worth replying to then don't reply, don't side track and derail a thread. Don't post in this thread again, thank you.

Rascasse · 12-09-2013 02:09AM

Putin has written an opinion piece in tomorrows NY Times.

Not really surprised at it's contents. Playing to the well known fears of the American people. Expressing doubt about the perpetrators of the chemical attack. That intelligence base at Latakia and the port at Tartus must be really important to him.

Ends with a bit of zinger:

We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

esteve · 12-09-2013 08:51AM

Godge wrote: »

I have been to both countries. My views are not based on long-distance viewing.

I did not say that America was an angel, I did not say that I agreed with all aspects of their foreign policy, however, I will repeat myself and say that the facts of the matter are that America is a much better, freer, equal country to live in than Russia. It has many things that it can be proud of. If you cannot see the difference between the two, then I am sorry for you. That does not mean that America can escape criticism.

That is entirely besides the point. While I am happy you had a good time there, better so in the US than Russia, it really doesnt matter in the context of the discussion. For one it is entirely subjective, ignoring facts but based on your opinion of both places. Others may in fact prefer Russia to the US after visiting both, but it doesnt really matter.

When the UK controlled India, London was a centre for innovation, development, art, culture and civilization, while at the same time it was crushing human rights abroad and taking part in some horrendous acts of oppression, terror and murder. Its foreign policy was barbaric and uncivilised, a complete paradox to London itself.

Tony EH · 12-09-2013 10:00AM

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

You've been warned about glib replies before, if something isn't worth replying to then don't reply, don't side track and derail a thread. Don't post in this thread again, thank you.

Hardly "glib". I would say quite accurate K-9.

If a poster is going to reply to a post with one word non-sequiturs like
"Innuendo" & "Accusations???"

There really is not that much to reply to is there?

Let's look at what was actually written, shall we?

My post was:

The UN has tried to include White Phosphorus (and many other chemical agents, including CS gas) into the list of chemical weapons a number of times, as its effects are just as damaging as others on the list.

Guess who continually gets in the way of that though...

...there are no prizes.

To which the reply was "Innuendo". There is no "Innuendo" here. Anybody with a keyboard and access to the web can find out about the UN's efforts to eliminate the use of chemical, biological, bacterial weaponry, along with other WMD and the US's attempts to block it, with the use of their veto and the threat of their veto. For instance, in 1981, 1982 and 1987, the US blocked UN attempts to curb these weapons. Ironically, in 2003 Syria tried to put forward a UN resolution to create a Middle East WMD free zone. Unfortunately the motion had to be shelved because one country threatened to simply veto it. That country was America.

My next bit of text was simply a link to a wki article because the issue of WP in Iraq was being discussed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_p...us_use_in_Iraq

Take from it what you will...

To which the reply form Godge was simply "Accusations???".

You'll note here, of course, that I have made no accusations in that post of any kind. I simply posted a link.

The rest of the content of Godge's post is a somewhat meaningless quote.

I am happy to engage in discussion with anyone who wants to make a valid point about the subject in question. However, the reality is that Godge's post really didn't contain anything worth replying to and I was pointing that out to him/her in an effort to get a better response from them.

Jonny7 · 12-09-2013 10:06AM

Rascasse wrote: »

Putin has written an opinion piece in tomorrows NY Times.

Not really surprised at it's contents. Playing to the well known fears of the American people. Expressing doubt about the perpetrators of the chemical attack. That intelligence base at Latakia and the port at Tartus must be really important to him.

Ends with a bit of zinger:

He's playing the home-crowd very well over this - he has to, they have an unsurprisingly different take on the conflict, fueled by Kremlin controlled press. The consummate politician.

Perhaps Hollande or Obama should suggest if the Russians are so committed to the well-being of Syria, perhaps they donate a sizeable portion of the 1.5 billion they are making on arms sales to Assad - to the UNHCR instead of the pittance they are currently donating.

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Comments