Syrian Civil War

[Guest American Woman]

Iraq has been rid of Saddam and has a chance at Democracy - which wasn't the case previously.

[roy baty]

After Kerry's statement today it would be shameful for any country to ignore this gassing of women and children. Just go in with a concise entrance and exit plan which Bush failed at. Assad and his henchmen need to be removed from this world for this atrocity.

[GostHacked]

Iraq has been rid of Saddam and has a chance at Democracy - which wasn't the case previously.

Democracy comes from within. Not from without.

'Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun, is terror else from the world I'm from.'

MC Frontalot - Special Delivery.

[Guest American Woman]

Democracy comes from within. Not from without.

'Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun, is terror else from the world I'm from.'

MC Frontalot - Special Delivery.

And now Iraq has the opportunity from within.

[GostHacked]

And now Iraq has the opportunity from within.

That is obviously quite difficult. Iraq's military and police forces needed to be rebuilt from the ground up when most of that was disbanded. A really stupid move in my view.

The following two videos is how Blackwater was helping with security in Iraq. I am sure this helped create the image that the USA was there to help. Private contractors play by different rules than the military.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jLO2e2Uozg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2Bq0KSnFpA

[Rue]

thanks for pointing this out rue!

god bless you and god bless america, the leader and saviour of the world!

it's a good thing they have suddenly decided to flip on the moral and ethical switch. it's too bad u.s. decided to help saddam while he gassed his own people and the iranians! but now, they hold up the moral compass for all of us to see! usa usa usa!

Buddy Boy and I do appreciate you are back as Buddy Boy again. Buddy Boy you can call me Jewboy. Get it? On a more serious note if you want to make an allegation that the US in fact aided Hussein gas Kurds, start a thread on it and do provide your sources. Hah like that will happen.

Secondly Buddy is that the best you have as an arguement to justify Assad gassing people-that someone else did it?

Aren't you the same Bud who smeared all Jews and Israelis equating us with Nazis because some of us believe we should have self-determination? Aren't you the same Bud who suggested the holocaust never happened and Israel is fabricated on a Zionist plot using the holocaust as an excuse?

Oh come now Bud. You equate we Jews as Nazis when you know over 6 million of us were gassed-and then you think we should have no right to escape that kind of gas slaughter, and criticize regimes using has to wipe out people?

You equate us with the people who gassed us and now you want to lecture me that gassing is ok by Assad and I and others should look the other way because you think the US applauded Hussein for gassing Kurds?

Good lard Buddy that is convaluted even for you.

The US never provided gas to Hussein. That is an out and out falsehood. Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and North Korea did. Russia, China and North Korea also gave it to Iran. NOT THE US.

Israel in fact supported Iran not Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war precisely because Hussein gassed Kurds and was engaing in genocide against them. Israel sided with the Kurds because of that gassing and other reasons and this is why both Turkey and Iraq now hate Israel as well as Iran since all 3 of these nations despise the Kurds.

The US and Israel both spoke out in support of the Kurds although the US had a muted response to as not to piss off their Turkish allies.

The US originally through Haliburton and its cronies Chaney and Rumsfeld supported Hussein but once Hussein engaged in the gas warfare the US stopped supporting Hussein as well.

You want to give lessons on genocide and be selective is that it Bud? If Sudan engages in genocide against black Christians that is ok? If Germany gases Jews no problem? If Assad gasses people no problem because as you argue, Hussein did it? Really? That's your position?

My position is simple-NO ONE AT NO TIME CAN BE ALLOWED TO USE GAS TO KILL PEOPLE IN WAR OR IN CIVIL UPRISINGS.

Hear me clear. I have been a strong critic of certain US policies in Iraq and Afghanistan and I don't much like their attitude in regards to our Northern waters but I do not hesitate for one second to state they are the only nation at this point in time willing to take a leadership role on this matter and they were right to take Hussein out precisely because he used gas.

Phack Hussein and everyone who apologized for him like you.

You take the position its ok for Assad to gas people and we should all just shut up?

Lol not so fast Buddy.

Not a good idea to lecture a Jew ongovernments that use gas to wipe people out. Been there and done that with my family. I applaud the US for speaking out against it. Up the Yanks on this one.

I stand by them when they send a colonic up Assad's miserable butt.

You want to make excuses for gassings go ahead but don't co me on this forum giving me moral lectures on Zionist Nazis.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Rue

[bud]

On a more serious note if you want to make an allegation that the US in fact aided Hussein gas Kurds, start a thread on it and do provide your sources. Hah like that will happen.

uhmmm... the post you replied to had the source. the page included copies of letters and memos from the u.s. government which showed that the u.s. helped saddam use chemical weapons.

you're so busy pounding your keyboard that you can't even pay attention to what you're replying to.

focus rue. focus.

[sharkman]

Rue, I agree with you on the no gassing position. It's genocide, mass murder and to think a leader did it to, not his enemy which is bad enough, but his own people, it's the act of a mad man.

But look with me at the world's response if you will. There is agreement that it's wrong, but no will to do anything about it. They make excuses like they don't want another Bush situation, or that Russia might ratchet up the response, or there's no good guy to support. But at the heart of it might be an indifference. A "so what, it's only Arabs killing Arabs" attitude. Like it doesn't quite add up to being worth all the trouble. This appears to me to be some kind of tipping point, a new bench mark, if you will.

The kind of lack of horror at the carnage that never used to exist. It bothers me a bit, because it sort of allows for a minor amount of genocide that the world has gotten used to. Which begs the question, what if it's only a little bit more next time, you can see a shoulder shrug occurring at that too. Or even another war. If Saudi Arabia took over Kuwait today, would the world respond? I mean, the Saudis know how to keep the oil flowing, so it's not like a Saddam situation. Or if China enlarged its borders just a little. Sanctions maybe, but hey, nobody wants to start a war over it.

It leaves room for the kind of stuff that started really big wars.

[Guest American Woman]

You pretty much summed up my feelings, Sharkman. I will say that I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes, having to deal with this situation, much less alone. I have to say that it looks as if he's really stepping up to the plate, too, ultimately standing behind his words in spite of his initial rhetoric. It surprises me that no other country is getting behind him; that no one wants to do anything. I always wonder how I would feel if I were in the victims' shoes - knowing that there are countries out there that could do something, but are choosing not to. I have to wonder, too, if Hitler were just gassing the German Jews, would anyone in the world have cared enough to do something?

[Guest]

If Hitler were just shooting them, would it make any sense to wait until he started gassing them?

[Guest American Woman]

If Hitler were just shooting them, would it make any sense to wait until he started gassing them?

Maybe it's a bad example in some regards, but generally speaking, people have a greater opportunity to shoot back than to fight against chemical warfare, aimed at civilian populations. There's a reason why there are legal rules of engagement. Do you think it's all the same, that 'anything goes;' or do you think we have to draw a line?

[Guest]

I don't know that we have to draw the line on actions taken during a civil war, especially when those actions are liable to help place the very weapons we are decrying into the hands of those who would be more likely to use them on us.

I might be able to support a few tomahawks if they were specifically aimed at killing Assad and his inner circle, as long as there were also a few aimed at the rebel leaders as well.

Edit> let me make that clear. The Assad ones could be launched. The others just aimed, for now.

Edited August 30, 2013 by bcsapper

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know that we have to draw the line on actions taken during a civil war

Why? Why wouldn't moral/ethical standards hold during a civil war, too?

especially when those actions are liable to help place the very weapons we are decrying into the hands of those who would be more likely to use them on us.

That would depend on our actions, right? We don't have to react by supplying weapons. But I do see your point. Food for thought.

I might be able to support a few tomahawks if they were specifically aimed at killing Assad and his inner circle, as long as there were also a few aimed at the rebel leaders as well.

Why the rebel leaders as well?

[Guest]

Why did we not interfere on Assad's side when we heard about rebel atrocities? There seems to have been a few. What is it about gas that makes the difference?

I'm thinking that the chemical weapons would fall into the hands of the winners of the civil war, and if it's not Assad, it's Al Qaeda.

I would target the rebel leaders because they would turn towards Israel and the west the instant Assad was defeated. It would be nice to nail them first.

[GostHacked]

Maybe it's a bad example in some regards, but generally speaking, people have a greater opportunity to shoot back than to fight against chemical warfare, aimed at civilian populations. There's a reason why there are legal rules of engagement. Do you think it's all the same, that 'anything goes;' or do you think we have to draw a line?

The rebels are not much better.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/24/us-syria-crisis-convoy-idUSBRE96N0FD20130724

Evidence of the rebels using chemical weapons. I know people wont take WND as a legit source, but the videos there do show something interesting. The makeshift bomb launched from artillery.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

[GostHacked]

Why did we not interfere on Assad's side when we heard about rebel atrocities? There seems to have been a few. What is it about gas that makes the difference?

I'm thinking that the chemical weapons would fall into the hands of the winners of the civil war, and if it's not Assad, it's Al Qaeda.

I would target the rebel leaders because they would turn towards Israel and the west the instant Assad was defeated. It would be nice to nail them first.

Al-Qeuda is also targeting the FSA leaders.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/us-syria-crisis-commander-idUSBRE96A10620130711

(Reuters) - Militants linked to al Qaeda in Syria killed a senior figure in the Western- and Arab-backed Free Syrian army on Thursday, an FSA source said, signaling a widening rift between Islamists and more moderate elements in the armed Syrian opposition.

Kamal Hamami, a member of the Free Syrian Army's Supreme Military Council, known by his nom de guerre Abu Bassel al-Ladkani, was meeting with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the port city of Latakia when they killed him, Qassem Saadeddine, a Free Syrian Army spokesman, told Reuters.

"The Islamic State phoned me saying that they killed Abu Bassel and that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council," Saadeddine said from Syria.

[Shady]

Democracy comes from within. Not from without.

'Democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun, is terror else from the world I'm from.'

MC Frontalot - Special Delivery.

That's just a bumper stick slogan. Ask Japan and Germany about Democracy not coming from a gun, or not coming from without.

[Guest]

Al-Qeuda is also targeting the FSA leaders.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/us-syria-crisis-commander-idUSBRE96A10620130711

I don't think it would be possible to keep any weapons left around when the dust settles out of the hands of people for whom the first target would be Israel, and the second one the US.

While Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other, it seems like the best policy is to leave well enough alone.

Certainly, if intervention has to happen, it should be willing to destroy both sides, as necessary..

[-TSS-]

The hypocrisy is really breathtaking. Both the US and the UK just can't wait to get to bomb Syria in order to protect the population. I'm sure the UK will find a way around somehow to join the US even though their parliament defeated the motion to use military action.

Very commendably unselfish policies by the US and the UK. I'm sure that Syria's strategic importance in the Middle-East has nothing to do with the philanthropic desire to jsut to protect the people of Syria from the bad bad dictator.

[Shady]

The hypocrisy is really breathtaking. Both the US and the UK just can't wait to get to bomb Syria in order to protect the population. I'm sure the UK will find a way around somehow to join the US even though their parliament defeated the motion to use military action.

Very commendably unselfish policies by the US and the UK. I'm sure that Syria's strategic importance in the Middle-East has nothing to do with the philanthropic desire to jsut to protect the people of Syria from the bad bad dictator.

What's the hypocrisy?

Anyways, countries should only get involved with things like this if there is specifically a national interest. So strategic importance would actually be a reason to get involved, even though in this case I'm less enthusiastic about any involvement.

[sharkman]

You pretty much summed up my feelings, Sharkman. I will say that I wouldn't want to be in Obama's shoes, having to deal with this situation, much less alone. I have to say that it looks as if he's really stepping up to the plate, too, ultimately standing behind his words in spite of his initial rhetoric. It surprises me that no other country is getting behind him; that no one wants to do anything. I always wonder how I would feel if I were in the victims' shoes - knowing that there are countries out there that could do something, but are choosing not to. I have to wonder, too, if Hitler were just gassing the German Jews, would anyone in the world have cared enough to do something?

It's true that Obama is in a hard place. Honestly I'm surprised he has little international support, he was the belle of the ball in 2008 winning the election and then the Nobel. He shouldn't have drawn his red line in the sand, however. The way Bush Sr. got the message across when invading Iraq seemed pretty effective. He told Saddam on the down low if he used any chemical weapons in the war he'd level Bagdad, or something like that. Saddam got the message and survived.

Edited August 31, 2013 by sharkman

[dre]

It's true that Obama is in a hard place. Honestly I'm surprised he has little international support, he was the belle of the ball in 2008 winning the election and then the Nobel. He shouldn't have drawn his red line in the sand, however. The way Bush Sr. got the message across when invading Iraq seemed pretty effective. He told Saddam on the down low if he used any chemical weapons in the war he'd level Bagdad, or something like that. Saddam got the message and survived.

He also told Saddam on the "down low" that it was OK to invade Kuwait in the first place.

[Argus]

He also told Saddam on the "down low" that it was OK to invade Kuwait in the first place.

Cite?

[Rue]

Rue, I agree with you on the no gassing position. It's genocide, mass murder and to think a leader did it to, not his enemy which is bad enough, but his own people, it's the act of a mad man.

But look with me at the world's response if you will. There is agreement that it's wrong, but no will to do anything about it. They make excuses like they don't want another Bush situation, or that Russia might ratchet up the response, or there's no good guy to support. But at the heart of it might be an indifference. A "so what, it's only Arabs killing Arabs" attitude. Like it doesn't quite add up to being worth all the trouble. This appears to me to be some kind of tipping point, a new bench mark, if you will.

The kind of lack of horror at the carnage that never used to exist. It bothers me a bit, because it sort of allows for a minor amount of genocide that the world has gotten used to. Which begs the question, what if it's only a little bit more next time, you can see a shoulder shrug occurring at that too. Or even another war. If Saudi Arabia took over Kuwait today, would the world respond? I mean, the Saudis know how to keep the oil flowing, so it's not like a Saddam situation. Or if China enlarged its borders just a little. Sanctions maybe, but hey, nobody wants to start a war over it.

It leaves room for the kind of stuff that started really big wars.

COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER SHARK

[Rue]

Cite?

Maybe it was a vision he had?