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

bumper234 · 14-09-2013 07:57PM

realweirdo wrote: »

The war on terror is a a complex one which demands a complex debate...it can't be settled by the usual 'America bad, everyone else good' arguments that go on around here. If I thought anyone was interested in that complex debate I'd gladly take part. The main point of the debate is that the Taliban and AQ are against democracy and most forms of human rights for individuals. Yes there is collatoral damage confronting them, but allowing them spread their poisonous philosophy is just not an option. I think even you would agree with that.

America joined WW2 at the end of '41. Roosevelt was probably keen to join earlier but there was a very vocal anti-interventionist lobby in the states who prevented him acting. The vocal ant-interventionists have their descendents today who say things like "we shouldn't get involved, there's nothing in it for us, not our problem and so on."

America did confront Russia as much as possible. Cuban missible crisis an example, but yes much of it was proxy conflicts to try to prevent the spread of communism, something clearly you think would have been ok. You also think that Russia is a knight in shining armour in the world. I would love to see you condemnn Russia and before it the USSRs appalling human rights record...they ruled half of Europe with local dictators.

The Japanese Empire was a genocidal state, just ask the Chinese. No-one cares if they were about to run out of oil or not. The best thing that ever happened was that Empire was consigned to the dust bin of history.

This thread has got boring with the usual monotonous anti american foreign policy types on it. They never say anything new.

Before you condemn people for being antiAmerican maybe you should read back the last few pages and read your posts. You are pro American to the point of insanity. I have never claimed to be anti American no more than i have claimed to be pro Putin pro Russian Pro Assad pr Taliban or pro Muslim brotherhood so please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your pro American USA#1 rhetoric of being anti American or Anti democracy.

What i am is anti death of innocent men women and children. Yes Assad or the rebels set off chemical weapons and i would have no problem with seeing the person responsible for this in front of a firing squad. But the answer to bombings is not MORE bombings.

Mr.Micro · 14-09-2013 08:01PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

He's supporting the rebels in Syria. CIA just sent them more weapons. There is no talk or strategy of stabilising Syria, though this whole thing stinks of regime change. And who do you think will replace Assad if his regime is ousted?

They know by now you can't just replace what's their with western post reformation ideas about democracy. They know it doesn't work. So to me it still looks like he supports the Muslim brotherhood defacto.

Yes indeed.
Getting Assad out and replacing him with some other group, that might prove to be not right, or acceptable either. Violent change does not always yield democracy, or a government that will fit all needs, alas.

clairefontaine · 14-09-2013 08:10PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes indeed.
Getting Assad out and replacing him with some other group, that might prove to be not right, or acceptable either. Violent change does not always yield democracy, or a government that will fit all needs, alas.

And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 08:23PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Before you condemn people for being antiAmerican maybe you should read back the last few pages and read your posts. You are pro American to the point of insanity. I have never claimed to be anti American no more than i have claimed to be pro Putin pro Russian Pro Assad pr Taliban or pro Muslim brotherhood so please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with your pro American USA#1 rhetoric of being anti American or Anti democracy.

What i am is anti death of innocent men women and children. Yes Assad or the rebels set off chemical weapons and i would have no problem with seeing the person responsible for this in front of a firing squad. But the answer to bombings is not MORE bombings.

What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle from you and others about how this could be tried or that could be tried, just hollow talk with nothing to back it up, the kind of talk that Assad has always ignored and has never listened to, the kind of talk that Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon are the world's foremost experts at...talk talk talk....which Assad ignores ignores ignores....
The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW. If he doesn't hand them over I hope they flatten his presidential palace, I make no bones about that....the guy is a mass murdering thug.

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 08:29PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

And because we know this, makes me suspect this venture has nothing to do with supporting democracy.

Another simplistic view of a rather complex conflict.
Getting democracy to take hold in Syria post Assad will require a gigantic international effort involving the EU, Arab League, possibly UN (although they are hopeless) and lots more organisations. It will require the help of the Germans, Italians and a lot more countries.
But so far none of these countries have shown the slightest interest. They just wish Syria would go away.
If America disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, the Syrian conflict would go on, no mistake about it.

clairefontaine · 14-09-2013 08:29PM

realweirdo wrote: »

What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle.
The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW.

There is no answer. It's a civil war, like the US' civil war, no intervention would have helped. It just had to happen.

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 08:33PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

There is no answer. It's a civil war, like the US' civil war, no intervention would have helped. It just had to happen.

But do you condemn the involvement of non syrians such as Hezbollah and Iranians on Assads side and Chechans, etc on the oppositions side? Do you think all non-syrians should withdraw?
Do you agree that Hezbollah have men on the ground in Syria whereas America have not. Are you ready to condemn Hezbollah's involvement?

clairefontaine · 14-09-2013 08:48PM

realweirdo wrote: »

But do you condemn the involvement of non syrians such as Hezbollah and Iranians on Assads side and Chechans, etc on the oppositions side? Do you think all non-syrians should withdraw?
Do you agree that Hezbollah have men on the ground in Syria whereas America have not. Are you ready to condemn Hezbollah's involvement?

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

Mr.Micro · 14-09-2013 09:05PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

Agreed, so far it's intervention in the Middle East is an ongoing mess. Iraq is still not stable and the ramifications may still manifest in the future. I never believe that the actions of the US are ever pure altruism. It always has an agenda IMO. Cynical I know. The US is always quite happy to see democracy,so long as it gets to influence who will be the candidates, as friends of the US.

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 09:50PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is a Middle eastern problem. Let them deal with it.

The US should stay out of it.

That is not the way these things work and you well know it. For several reasons. You know well that when you ignore certain things in the middle east today, they end up in the west's backyard tomorrow. Just let's say Al Nusra or Al Quida in Iraq who are both very strong now in Syria, make significant advances in Syria to the point where they capture chemical weapons stockpiles.
Do you think we can still ignore the problem then?

Removing Syria's CW is a priority for everyone. It's no use saying in years to come why didn't someone do something?

The Americans are the only country in the world who issued the red line over Assad's CW use. They are the only country to back it up with credible force. They are the only country who has brought Assad to the negotiating table. They are the only one who have the capability to persuade him to give them up.

Like I said, getting those CW out of Syria is a major issue for international security.

bumper234 · 14-09-2013 10:07PM

realweirdo wrote: »

What is the answer? Prayer? Fasting? More UN diplomacy? Give us a really seriously credibile alternative. You are just repeating the same naive nonsense over and over about how Assad would change if people asked him nicely, how he would have handed over his chemical weapons if only people would have asked him nicely. So far I am hearing waffle from you and others about how this could be tried or that could be tried, just hollow talk with nothing to back it up, the kind of talk that Assad has always ignored and has never listened to, the kind of talk that Kofi Annan and Ban Ki Moon are the world's foremost experts at...talk talk talk....which Assad ignores ignores ignores....
The Americans haven't used bombs..yet..they said they wouldn't use them unless Assad refused to hand over his CW. If he doesn't hand them over I hope they flatten his presidential palace, I make no bones about that....the guy is a mass murdering thug.

So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 10:13PM

bumper234 wrote: »

So was Bush so is Obama....maybe the rest of the world should start calling for the white house to be bombed?

So was Stalin...lets just do whataboutery from now on on this thread, it seems to be the only thing you're good at...now your turn...

bumper234 · 14-09-2013 10:16PM

realweirdo wrote: »

So was Stalin...lets just do whataboutery from now on on this thread, it seems to be the only thing you're good at...now your turn...

Assad kills innocent people lets bomb the shìt out of him

Obama kills innocent people lets give him a fùcking nobel peace prize.

realweirdo · 14-09-2013 10:24PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Assad kills innocent people lets bomb the shìt out of him

Obama kills innocent people lets give him a fùcking nobel peace prize.

More whataboutery....

Obama's use of drones is a seperate issue...if you want to debate the rights and wrongs of it open a new thread and we can discuss it there, if you feel so strongly about it.

donegal__road · 15-09-2013 11:34AM

In 2000, Saddam switched from the dollar to the euro for oil payments.. because 'he did not want to deal with the currency of the enemy'.. the US moved on him 2 years later.

in 2010, Gaddafi announced he was going to drop the dollar in favour of the Dinar for trading oil. This move literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan. So they bombed Libya in 2011.

In 2011, Iran started trading oil for gold with Turkey and other countries. The reason being that the US imposed sanctions on Iran, which meant that Iran was barred from using the SWIFT system... forcing Iran to barter.

.

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 02:34PM

donegal__road wrote: »

In 2000, Saddam switched from the dollar to the euro for oil payments.. because 'he did not want to deal with the currency of the enemy'.. the US moved on him 2 years later.

in 2010, Gaddafi announced he was going to drop the dollar in favour of the Dinar for trading oil. This move literally had the potential to bring down the dollar and the world monetary system by extension, according to analysts. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a "threat" to the financial security of the world. The "Insiders" were apparently panicking over Gadhafi's plan. So they bombed Libya in 2011.

In 2011, Iran started trading oil for gold with Turkey and other countries. The reason being that the US imposed sanctions on Iran, which meant that Iran was barred from using the SWIFT system... forcing Iran to barter.

.

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

donegal__road · 15-09-2013 02:43PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

If countries were allowed to continue trading commodities for gold, it would mean the trend would spread like wildfire and it would mean the end of the petrodollar. The USA have spent years establishing the dollar as the unit of currency by which oil is traded (as you know).. if an oil producing country threatens to drop the dollar when selling their oil, in favour of another currency, or bartering for other commodities, the USA will act on that country sooner rather than later.

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euro.. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the US dollar.

Iran has created its own Iranian Oil bourse which started selling oil in gold, euros, dollars, and Japanese yen.

In 2006 Venezuela indicated support for Iran's decision to offer global oil trade in the euro currency.

One of the driving forces of US foreign policy has been maintaining the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency and as the currency in which oil is priced.

.

esteve · 15-09-2013 07:28PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Conspiracy theories is the forum you're looking for

Is what he wrote not true?

realweirdo · 15-09-2013 07:35PM

esteve wrote: »

Is what he wrote not true?

If you ignore a lot of facts, its true such as the fact that the UNSC, Arab League, NATO and dozens of countries supported the intervention in Libya including Scandanavian countries as well as Belgium. Were they also all trying to overthrow Gaddafi because of his alleged move to trading oil with gold?

That's the problem with a lot of these conspiracies, they only work if you ignore a lot of things.

donegal__road · 15-09-2013 08:14PM

realweirdo wrote: »

If you ignore a lot of facts, its true such as the fact that the UNSC, Arab League, NATO and dozens of countries supported the intervention in Libya including Scandanavian countries as well as Belgium. Were they also all trying to overthrow Gaddafi because of his alleged move to trading oil with gold?

That's the problem with a lot of these conspiracies, they only work if you ignore a lot of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqZfaj34nc

In the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi called on African countries and other Muslim countries to come together and join the new currency he intended to establish, the Dinar.

.

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 08:38PM

esteve wrote: »

Is what he wrote not true?

There's little evidence. Gadaffi had dozens of crackpot ideas, the "United States of Africa", a gold dinar, abolishing Switzerland and so on..

Most of these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran) have been under sanctions by the West/World for decades - they have sought alternative ways of trading, Iran switched to trading oil via rial/gold/euro/etc over a year and a half ago.

bumper234 · 15-09-2013 08:45PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's little evidence. Gadaffi had dozens of crackpot ideas, the "United States of Africa", a gold dinar, abolishing Switzerland and so on..

Most of these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran) have been under sanctions by the West/World for decades - they have sought alternative ways of trading, Iran switched to trading oil via rial/gold/euro/etc over a year and a half ago.

Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 08:54PM

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah around the same time the US starter beating the war drum about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Coincidence?

Actually it started back in 2002. Really kicked off in 2006, capped off with a unanimous UNSC resolution at the end of the year. Rouhani and Israeli intelligence has really cooled off the whole episode for now.

donegal__road · 15-09-2013 09:20PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

There's little evidence. Gadaffi had dozens of crackpot ideas, the "United States of Africa", a gold dinar, abolishing Switzerland and so on..

Most of these countries (Iraq, Libya, Iran) have been under sanctions by the West/World for decades - they have sought alternative ways of trading, Iran switched to trading oil via rial/gold/euro/etc over a year and a half ago.

article in The New American

article in Russia Today

The Centre for Research on Globalization

The Examiner

*you probably wont find any of these theories in the mainstream media if thats what you mean by little evidence. I thought you would have heard of the hypothesis of Petrodollar Warfare.

Here is an interesting British made documentary on petrodollar conflicts in the Middle East involving the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52DpTsHkd2U

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 09:46PM

Won't find any of these theories in mainstream anything, because they are just theories. When they strike a certain narrative they are seized upon by the relevant blog/editorial sites that do their best to pose as news articles.. and of course our favorite foreign propaganda sites if they are in any way anti-Western or take a nice juicy shot at Israel.

bumper234 · 15-09-2013 09:48PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

Won't find any of these theories in mainstream anything, because they are just theories. When they strike a certain narrative they are seized upon by the relevant blog/editorial sites that do their best to pose as news articles.. and of course our favorite foreign propaganda sites if they are in any way anti-Western or take a nice juicy shot at Israel.

So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?

alastair · 15-09-2013 10:03PM

bumper234 wrote: »

So we should only believe it's true if it comes from fox, cnn, nbc etc?

Rather better to only believe them, or at least give them some degree of credibility, if they have some evidence to support the mooted theories. Otherwise it's just a work of creative fiction.

bumper234 · 15-09-2013 10:18PM

alastair wrote: »

Rather better to only believe them, or at least give them some degree of credibility, if they have some evidence to support the mooted theories. Otherwise it's just a work of creative fiction.

Cool.

can i expect to see this evidence anytime soon?

realweirdo · 15-09-2013 10:18PM

donegal__road wrote: »

In the months leading up to the invasion of Libya, Gaddafi called on African countries and other Muslim countries to come together and join the new currency he intended to establish, the Dinar.

.

You're using Russia Today as a source? Seriously? You might as well use the Disney Channel or the back of a Rice Crispie box as a source.

donegal__road · 15-09-2013 10:31PM

realweirdo wrote: »

You're using Russia Today as a source? Seriously? You might as well use the Disney Channel or the back of a rice crispie box as a source.

not according to Hillary Clinton, who has put Russia Today, Al Jazeera, and China's CCTV ahead of American domestic news channels.... in her own words,

'The U.S. is losing an information war to alternative media outlets, including RT'

here is Hillary Clinton addressing congress on the issue of American TV trailing behind non-Western media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6sYB5d1Bu4

Faux News, ABC, CNN, NBC are a monolithic media.

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

Comments