War with Syria

[rhaig 0]

quade

Understand the CIA is not the military and assume they are in Syria as well as every other country on the planet.

Now . . . you were saying?

So you'd be OK with having CIA and PMC's providing weapons and training to the Syrian rebels. Including al-Qaeda linked groups like the Nursa Front. ("One of the most effective Syrian rebel groups fighting President Bashar al-Assad is the Nusra Front, effectively a branch of al Qaeda." -- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/09/us-usa-security-threat-idUSBRE98803S20130909)

--
Rob

[Darius11 12]

I think we stay out of it because both sides are the enemy.
At most (not saying I would support, I just wouldn’t fight as hard against it) humanitarian support, that’s all.

As for suffering just because Syria is in the headlines doesn’t mean it’s the only place where there is suffering. There are so many places that need help why Syria? They are leading you down the rabbit hole again and I am surprised that you are willing to follow them.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[quade 3]

rhaig

***Understand the CIA is not the military and assume they are in Syria as well as every other country on the planet.

Now . . . you were saying?

So you'd be OK with having CIA and PMC's providing weapons and training to the Syrian rebels.

I didn't say that. I think you presume too much when it comes to the CIA and Nursa. I'm fairly certain the CIA knows who they're dealing with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Like they did in ....

Iraq, 2003
Cuba, 1961
3000 or so innocent people kidnapped and moved secretly around the world for torture - made famous by Khaled el-Masri
Iran 2011 when they allowed the Hezbollah to execute 12 informants
Kuwait invasion 1990
USA 1950's - 1970's LSD testing that resulted in deaths
NYC 9/11/2001


I would not expect them to ever "know who they're dealing with" based on their history.
Surely that's different this time?

[rhaig 0]

quade

******Understand the CIA is not the military and assume they are in Syria as well as every other country on the planet.

Now . . . you were saying?

So you'd be OK with having CIA and PMC's providing weapons and training to the Syrian rebels.

I didn't say that. I think you presume too much when it comes to the CIA and Nursa. I'm fairly certain the CIA knows who they're dealing with.

so benefit of the doubt... CIA isn't aiding Nursa. But they're helping a different rebel group. We are positive none of the members of this other group have any affiliations with Nursa. And the help this other group is provided will not help Nursa's efforts whatsoever to oust Assad and rise to power in the area.

That seems a little like a reach to me.

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Like 90% of Americans I think we should stay out.

1. People get up in arms when Chemical weapons are used... But those same people didn't seem to care when traditional weapons have been used for years by the same people and killing the same people.

2. We don't have solid proof who used them. It could have been an accident, or a set up.

3. When we invaded Iraq we took 18 months and formed a true coalition. We have no such support this time. I say make the UN do something for once.

[quade 3]

Isn't this pretty much an admission Syria used the weapons and the opposition doesn't have access to equal weapons?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html

Isn't it also an admission the pressure the US is putting on Syria by threatening to attack IS doing some good?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>Isn't this pretty much an admission Syria used the weapons and the opposition doesn't
>have access to equal weapons?

I'd say it's an attempt to avoid being bombed. If they are serious about it - and impartial observers can enter the country and verify that the weapons are not being used - then we have a much less bad outcome for all involved.

[winsor 186]

quade

Isn't this pretty much an admission Syria used the weapons and the opposition doesn't have access to equal weapons?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html

Isn't it also an admission the pressure the US is putting on Syria by threatening to attack IS doing some good?

Wrong, as usual.

[rhaig 0]

quade

Isn't it also an admission the pressure the US is putting on Syria by threatening to attack IS doing some good?

Well... if we don't actually have to attack to solve the problem, then everyone wins. If we bluffed all along not intending to attack, that was poor strategy. Getting called on your bluff and not following through is much worse in international politics than in a friendly game of poker.

If we weren't bluffing, then threatening to attack got everyone's hackles up over what would likely have been a multinational conflict if we'd actually attacked. It may yet result in a diplomatic resolution, but that doesn't appear to have been the goal on the outset.


But at least we all here have seen that when the Republican in chief is pushing us to the brink of war, opposition isn't the same as when the Democrat in chief is doing the exact same thing.

--
Rob

[quade 3]

winsor

---

Nothing useful to say . . . as usual.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Darius11 12]

I am not saying chemical weapons were not used, I don’t know if they were or they weren't.
My opinion stays the same. Its people killing people and both sides are not our friend.
I also know that there is no such thing as a moral high ground. We use and have used chemical weapons, we have supported, kept quite when our allies use them. So there is no moral issue because we have none, then the issue becomes a selfish issue how does this serve us, and it does not.
We should just let whoever is killing who ever get done then decide if we want to have a relationship with whoever the winner of their civil war is.
I know its cold and people are suffering but people are always suffering and in many places. I wish things were different, I wish there was some moral high ground we or anyone could hold without being a hypocrite but there is not. So fuck it, as long as there not fucking with us do what they want.
Humanitarian aid ok that’s it and to whomever needs it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Andy9o8 0]

DaVinci

Like 90% of Americans I think we should stay out.

FWIW - per today's Gallup poll, it's 51% opposed, 36% in favor [and 13% still undecided or no opinion]:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164306/opponents-say-action-syria-not-america-concern.aspx?ref=more

Still, I'd argue that 36% is a significantly small level of support. Members of Congress ignore those numbers at their considerable electoral peril. (That would probably be even more the case if this was an even-numbered election year.)

[masterblaster72 0]

winsor

***Isn't this pretty much an admission Syria used the weapons and the opposition doesn't have access to equal weapons?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html

Isn't it also an admission the pressure the US is putting on Syria by threatening to attack IS doing some good?

Wrong, as usual.

I don't agree that we should bomb Syria, but I can see his point in relation to the linked article. How is he wrong on this one? Or are you just playing contrarian?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kelpdiver 2]

masterblaster72

I don't agree that we should bomb Syria, but I can see his point in relation to the linked article. How is he wrong on this one? Or are you just playing contrarian?

There was never a question of the Assad government possessing chemical weapons. Their potential agreement to hand over control over those munitions to avoid being attacked says absolutely nothing about them having used them, or anything about the rebels.

[masterblaster72 0]

rhaig

But at least we all here have seen that when the Republican in chief is pushing us to the brink of war, opposition isn't the same as when the Democrat in chief is doing the exact same thing.

If you read this thread more closely rather than taking the gratuitous dig at the "dems" and "libs," you'll see there are many who opposed the war in Iraq and consistently oppose the attack on Syria. I am turned off by his haste to go blow shit up as his predecessor did.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[masterblaster72 0]

Channman

I guess what troubles me is Obama seems far more interested in responding to a chemical attack, than he was in providing any help what so ever to four American's defending themselves and roughly 30 others against a Terrorist attack while making repeated calls for help. Nope, nothing...not a damn thing that man did to assist our men.

I would take this point seriously weren't it for the fact that I don't recall you expressing any disgust at all with the 4,000+ killed in Iraq over a deliberate lie while your ex-governor's administration was calling the shots.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

Syrian rebels ready to strike with the use of chemical weapons against Israel from the territory controlled by the regime of Bashar al-Assad. As reported by Russia Today, the goal militants - mezhdunarodnuaya large-scale provocation.
Belgian scientist Pierre da Prata Piccinini, bought out today from captivity in Syria, said the gas attack near Damascus on August 21 organized Islamist militants, ITAR-TASS reported.
"I happened to hear a conversation about militants preparing gas attack in order to provoke a foreign invasion. Report this my moral duty," - he said in a live TV channel RTL.
Special weight to his words makes the fact that the scientist has always been in support of the Syrian opposition. He was captured by rebels near Damascus in April this year, during his seventh trip to Syria since 2010.

http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1127701&tid=95994
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/syrien-krise/syrien-ticker-32314018.bild.html

[masterblaster72 0]

kelpdiver

***
I don't agree that we should bomb Syria, but I can see his point in relation to the linked article. How is he wrong on this one? Or are you just playing contrarian?

There was never a question of the Assad government possessing chemical weapons. Their potential agreement to hand over control over those munitions to avoid being attacked says absolutely nothing about them having used them, or anything about the rebels.

True enough, and it certainly is not proof of who used the CWs in the attack -- though I can see how Assad's willingness to give up the weapons can be perceived as an admission.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Darius11 12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iC_9akU0KMw#t=197

watch this if you have 15 min.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[normiss 622]

Snugging up the tin foil?

[Darius11 12]

You know the used to say “you’re crazy if you think the CIA is importing cocaine to the US, your one of those nut jobs” Or “what were selling arms to Iran? what are you crazy”, I can give you more examples of things that at the time were considered nut job conspiracy until off course they came true.

If you are unaware of secret motivations and you think they tell you the truth then you need to send me some of what your smoking.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[winsor 186]

masterblaster72

******Isn't this pretty much an admission Syria used the weapons and the opposition doesn't have access to equal weapons?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html

Isn't it also an admission the pressure the US is putting on Syria by threatening to attack IS doing some good?

Wrong, as usual.

I don't agree that we should bomb Syria, but I can see his point in relation to the linked article. How is he wrong on this one? Or are you just playing contrarian?

Where to start?

There is nothing in the article that would suggest that:

A) Syria used Sarin

or that

B) The opposition does not have access to Sarin.

Quite the contrary, the Syrian Gov't may have come to the realization that they really don't stand to benefit from having the damned stuff around, and that they can gain quite a bit by having the Russians broker their divestiture of same.

Indeed, using this issue to demonstrate that the US CIC is a waffling buffoon and the the Russian leader is comparatively masterful - without losing anything of value in the process - is a real win/win situation. The Russians consider chess a national pastime, and it shows.

Since at least one group of "rebels" has verifiable access to Sarin, it could support the claim of the Syrian Gov't that any future use of CW was the work of one group of "rebels" or another - as may well have been the case here.

As far as being an admission of anything, one would have to be delusional to reach that conclusion.

A basic education regarding the recent history of civil wars and popular uprisings makes it clear that the simplistic scenarios put forth by the US Gov't and various media are pure nonsense, for any number of reasons. I shall attribute to ignorance the espousal of such tripe, and doing such homework as is necessary to have a rudimentary understanding of the subject is left as an exercise to those interested in having an opinion worthy of consideration.


BSBD,

Winsor

[kelpdiver 2]

masterblaster72

True enough, and it certainly is not proof of who used the CWs in the attack -- though I can see how Assad's willingness to give up the weapons can be perceived as an admission.

It's still a leap, and a particularly bad one to make for an American where we require proof to convict, not proof to exonerate.

If Assad hadn't used them and expects to continue to abide by the ban on their use, he loses little by giving them up. And of course, he knows that should he really want them again, Putin will be happy to supply him with more. Doing do completely neutralizes any international support for attacks by the US or Israel to try to get Assad out, and makes it easy for Russia to justify vetoing any UN resolutions.

At the very least it's a pretty good stalling maneuver - he doesn't have to make good on the promise, but can delay 6+ months to years with the process. He only need review Saddam's actions in the 90s for a blueprint.

[rhaig 0]

masterblaster72

***

But at least we all here have seen that when the Republican in chief is pushing us to the brink of war, opposition isn't the same as when the Democrat in chief is doing the exact same thing.

If you read this thread more closely rather than taking the gratuitous dig at the "dems" and "libs," you'll see there are many who opposed the war in Iraq and consistently oppose the attack on Syria. I am turned off by his haste to go blow shit up as his predecessor did.

Good for you. We're on the same page. (both now, and 10 years ago)

as for the rest of it....

--
Rob