Syrian Civil War

[Rue]

After two years, and already 2 other failed attempts to pin chemical weapons on Assad, Assad needs to be pummeled into the ground? The two year backing of the rebels failed and now the big guns need to be brought in?

This is less of countries and kind of more about the division between the Shiites and Sunnis in which the west and the east are both using against each other.

This time it does not look like it is about oil. What does Syria have that the west wants so bad?

More specifically the US has lost credibility here. Iraq was not so far behind us that people are all of a sudden forgetting. There is less evidence here than there was for invading Iraq.

But silence was what we heard the last two chemical attacks. Was it because there was no evidence? Or was it because it was not Assad and the Syrian army who used them?

Would you still support blowing the hell out of Syria if it was the western backed rebels who did the chemical attack?

I would support an air strike on either side if it used chemical weapons. I also only support a limited air strike. Blowing the hell out of Syria no.

I was a strong opponent of the way the Israeli PM conducted the air war on Lebanon. I was part of a group that argued for limited strategic response strikes by quick moving commando units. I am a believer in using highly mobile, commando units of no more than 20 elite forces or so taking out strategic sites or say missiles fired at specific sites.

Wiping out thousands of civilians to protest wiping out a thousand civilians gassed I agree makes no sense.

But we are involved in a war of brinksmanship with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia testing Obama and the West. Silence would be disasterous not to mention I see some kind of moral imperative here and by that I mean surely we have to draw a line on nuclear and chemical warfare not that any war is moral.

Your points are taken. I may not agree with you but your points are well stated.

Look there is no doubt an air strike could cause retaliation against Israel which would then defend itself and surely we could then have Iran and Hezbollah getting involved. However I don't think that will happen. I believe Hezbollah are cowards and won't fight a ground war only involve themselves in terrorist actions behind the scenes. I say the same for Iran. Assad comes from a family that understands only blood. Him I see as a cold blooded sociopath.

Without chemicals Assad would have his ass on a pole by now. He has only been able to remain in power due to an Iranian-Hezbollah-Russian axis propping him.

I do agree for the most part this is a Sunni-Shiite war. Israel loses no matter what happens. Whoever wins will eventually blame Israel.

[GostHacked]

I would support an air strike on either side if it used chemical weapons. I also only support a limited air strike. Blowing the hell out of Syria no.

Wiping out thousands of civilians to protest wiping out a thousand civilians gassed I agree makes no sense.

But we are involved in a war of brinksmanship with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia testing Obama and the West. Silence would be disasterous not to mention I see some kind of moral imperative here and by that I mean surely we have to draw a line on nuclear and chemical warfare not that any war is moral.

Your points are taken. I may not agree with you but your points are well stated.

I appreciate the acknowledgement.

Look there is no doubt an air strike could cause retaliation against Israel which would then defend itself and surely we could then have Iran and Hezbollah getting involved. However I don't think that will happen. I believe Hezbollah are cowards and won't fight a ground war only involve themselves in terrorist actions behind the scenes. I say the same for Iran. Assad comes from a family that understands only blood. Him I see as a cold blooded sociopath.

I am not really concerned about Israel at all.

Without chemicals Assad would have his ass on a pole by now. He has only been able to remain in power due to an Iranian-Hezbollah-Russian axis propping him.

And how is that different from the US, Turkey NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the opposite sides? The US goes in to protect it's 'interests' and Russia will do exactly the same. When someone acts the exact same we do with the same reasons, we call them evil and terrorists and such.

I do agree for the most part this is a Sunni-Shiite war. Israel loses no matter what happens. Whoever wins will eventually blame Israel.

This is not about Israel. But if Israel is part of the mix on the US NATO side, then you can expect it to be hit. It's the closest 'western' country. I think that is part of the advantage of operating out of Turkey and possibly Jordan against Syria. This way it looks like Muslim on Muslim. This is looking more like a proxy war of East/west THROUGH the Sunnis and Shiites. That's how I see it.

[DogOnPorch]

Can you not say who is destabilizing the entire Middle East?

GH: Wiping out thousands of civilians to protest wiping out a thousand civilians gassed I agree makes no sense.

Do you expect a NATO intervention would target Syrian civilian areas as a form of protest?

[eyeball]

Who is deliberately destabilizing the entire Middle East?

Al Queda for one, following a script bin Laden laid down years ago - draw the diddlers into an endless war that bleeds them dry while overthrowing the tyrants they've propped up.

To bad we've squandered the only defence we ever really had - our principles - by refusing to face down the diddlers and start treating their support for tyrants and monsters in other countries as being amongst the worst crime against humanity that can be committed. In the case of Syria that would be Russia and China.

Despite our own complicity in denying and enabling much of the geo-political diddling going on in the world Canada is still in a position where it could start bringing diddlers to heel by withholding our natural resources and refusing to wheel and deal with them. It would hurt and it would mean calling on the sort of willingness our grandparents had to make sacrifices when fighting tyranny in the world but that's how we roll, or so I was raised up to believe.

It's never too late to take the high road. There are on-ramp's every where you look.

[DogOnPorch]

Al Queda for one, following a script bin Laden laid down years ago - draw the diddlers into an endless war that bleeds them dry while overthrowing the tyrants they've propped up.

To bad we've squandered the only defence we ever really had - our principles - by refusing to face down the diddlers and start treating their support for tyrants and monsters in other countries as being amongst the worst crime against humanity that can be committed. In the case of Syria that would be Russia and China.

Despite our own complicity in denying and enabling much of the geo-political diddling going on in the world Canada is still in a position where it could start bringing diddlers to heel by withholding our natural resources and refusing to wheel and deal with them. It would hurt and it would mean calling on the sort of willingness our grandparents had to make sacrifices when fighting tyranny in the world but that's how we roll, or so I was raised up to believe.

It's never too late to take the high road. There are on-ramp's every where you look.

Good luck with all that. Perhaps you should move to a nation that more suits your world view.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in who the poster Gosthacked claims is destabilizing the entire Middle East. He won't say it...so I doubt he's thinking al-Qaeda. As far as GH is concerned, Canada is working hand-in-hand with al-Qaeda.

[GostHacked]

Good luck with all that. Perhaps you should move to a nation that more suits your world view.

Meanwhile, I'm interested in who the poster Gosthacked claims is destabilizing the entire Middle East. He won't say it...so I doubt he's thinking al-Qaeda. As far as GH is concerned, Canada is working hand-in-hand with al-Qaeda.

You are only interested in my view to bait, twist and then project things that I never said. Did I ever say ONCE that Canada was working with Al-Queda hand in hand?? No. So, you don't deserve a proper reply.

[sharkman]

Not that anyone cares about the mess Iraq was left in. But Syria faces the same fate as Iraq and Libya....

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20226505-at-least-71-dead-201-hurt-in-bombings-and-other-attacks-across-iraqi-capital?lite

This is deliberate destabilization of the WHOLE Middle East.

Mission Accomplished?

When you keep on throwing out these grenades without naming any names, you can expect to get called on it once in a while.

[GostHacked]

When you keep on throwing out these grenades without naming any names, you can expect to get called on it once in a while.

Start here for the answers. Catch up on those pages, then come back to me.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22485-syria-war/page-7

Edited August 28, 2013 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

You are only interested in my view to bait, twist and then project things that I never said. Did I ever say ONCE that Canada was working with Al-Queda hand in hand?? No. So, you don't deserve a proper reply.

Chicken.

[bleeding heart]

Good luck with all that. Perhaps you should move to a nation that more suits your world view.

Actually, Eyeball is pretty explicitly adhering to the typical Canadian worldview...except he recognizes that, as it stands, that view is mostly a self-serving myth. And he thinks it shouldn't be.

Boy, these radicals!

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, Eyeball is pretty explicitly adhering to the typical Canadian worldview...except he recognizes that, as it stands, that view is mostly a self-serving myth. And he thinks it shouldn't be.

Boy, these radicals!

Fallacy: What's a 'typical Canadian worldview'? Everyone should play hockey? Egg prices are too high? Gosh, it's cold a lot?

[bleeding heart]

Fallacy: What's a 'typical Canadian worldview'? Everyone should play hockey? Egg prices are too high? Gosh, it's cold a lot?

That our foreign policy is based on benign motives; that we try to do "what is right"; that everyone should play hockey.

Hell, you must have some notion, with your "love it or leave it" philosophy. lol

[DogOnPorch]

That our foreign policy is based on benign motives; that we try to do "what is right"; that everyone should play hockey.

Hell, you must have some notion, with your "love it or leave it" philosophy. lol

You DO NOT speak for all Canadians. Period. It's an outright lie to claim your personal viewpoint is 'typical anything'.

[Rue]

This is looking more like a proxy war of East/west THROUGH the Sunnis and Shiites. That's how I see it.

Again we have different views on this obviously but I most certainly agree with the above analysis. Whether we like it or not there is a Sunni-Shiite confrontation going on in the Middle East with Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian controlled Hamas cell now in charge of Gaza propped by Russia and China on one side and a very precarious Sunni constellation of the current military regime in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE propped by the West (Europe, Canada, Australia, US and Japan as well as India).

The wild card is the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Turkish regime heavily aligned with it who hate the West and their own non fundamentalist Sunnis as much as they do the Shiites.

Then we have the other wild card the Sunni extremists of Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, now on the march in Africa, i.e., Malawi who detest the Muslim Brotherhood, non fundamentalist Sunnis, Shiites, the West, the East.

China and Russia are playing a bizarre game. Both fear Muslim extremists in their own nations so Russia thinks an alliance with Shiite Muslims in Iran and Syria is a good way to contain Sunni Muslims in their country. Same reasoning for China.

So we have this wierd series of statements from the Chinese and Russians thinking the US and West has sided with Al Quaeda.

So we have a proxy war for sure and of course oil is beneath it all but its very very complex. The alliances can turn in a second. today's foe is tomorrow's ally and then back to foe the day after.

One last thing I want to respond to. When Sadaam Hussein chose to use mustard gas on the Kurds, Israeli and American intelligence warned Britain, Germany, France and Belgium not to send chemicals to Iraq. They were both told to phack off.

So to suggest the US aided Hussein with gas is not true. There is no doubt at all, when Hussein first came to power both Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld went to Iraq, kissed his ass and supplied him weapons. Interestingly Russia, North Korea, Israel, China, France, Britain, Belgium, Brazil sold weapons to both sides through all kinds of companies.

If you start looking closely multi nationals in the military weapons business transcend any one nation but interestingly all the permanent security council members have economies whose number 1 industry is the production of military weapons and hardware.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rue

[Rue]

The other day I was criticizing Obama's bafflegab on Syria. I take it back due to the comments of the last few days and in particular a deliberately stated comment by VP Joe Biden. I am not asking the US to be the saviour of the world, but I do think they are the leader and I feel safer that they are the lead country and speaking up and their leadership is appreciated. Who else? What China? Russia? . A yank missile up Assad's butt would be nice. He could consider it a colonic.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rue

[bud]

The other day I was criticizing Obama's bafflegab on Syria. I take it back due to the comments of the last few days and in particular a deliberately stated comment by VP Joe Biden. I am not asking the US to be the saviour of the world, but I do think they are the leader and I feel safer that they are the lead country and speaking up and their leadership is appreciated. Who else? What China? Russia? . A yank missile up Assad's butt would be nice. He could consider it a colonic.

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!

[Guest]

I haven't been paying much attention to these threads as I've been busy the last little while, so I apologise if I repeat what others say.

Why on earth should the US or any other western nation bomb Syria? The death toll is over a hundred thousand now and we are suddenly interested? It can't be due to the self interest that saw Iraq invaded, as any destruction of the Assad regime can only place chemical weapons in the hands of Sunni jihadists.

It's a shame that innocents are killed by any weapons of war, but as long as Sunnis and Shiites are having it out on their own, I would advocate leaving them to it. If any chemicals do look like they are getting away, we can probably rely on the Israelis, god bless 'em, to drop a missile on whatever truck is doing the carrying.

At least the UK has shown some sense and voted against any military intervention. (I've only read the headline, so I still have to look at the reasoning behind the vote.)

[bleeding heart]

You DO NOT speak for all Canadians. Period. It's an outright lie to claim your personal viewpoint is 'typical anything'.

You're floundering. Again.

[Argus]

And how is that different from the US, Turkey NATO, Saudi Arabia and Qatar on the opposite sides? The US goes in to protect it's 'interests' and Russia will do exactly the same. When someone acts the exact same we do with the same reasons, we call them evil and terrorists and such.

Maybe because there is a moral difference between supporting those who commit mass murder and those trying to fight them...

[GostHacked]

Maybe because there is a moral difference between supporting those who commit mass murder and those trying to fight them...

So what is the moral difference of supporting known terrorists to take out a so called tyrant?

Keep in mind, most of these Free Syrian Army 'members' are not Syrian.

Keep in mind, a good deal of these 'rebels' are known terror groups like Al-Queda.

Maybe you can explain the moral difference there?

[Argus]

So what is the moral difference of supporting known terrorists to take out a so called tyrant?

Keep in mind, most of these Free Syrian Army 'members' are not Syrian.

Keep in mind, a good deal of these 'rebels' are known terror groups like Al-Queda.

Maybe you can explain the moral difference there?

I think your information is incomplete. The Free Syrian Army is, in fact, made up largely of Syrians, including many army defectors, and espouses a non-sectarian philosophy. The group you are probably thinking of is a much smaller group which was initially made up of a core of former Iraqi insurgents. There are also a couple of other groups which are Islamist oriented.

The thing to keep in mind about Syria is it's not really a country. It was created by France in the 1920s, and none of the ethnic groups living around it has any particular affection for each other. The idea they could ever form a democracy is absurd, imho, so I would agree the options for the West in Syria are bad and worse. That's one of the reasons there hasn't been a focused support for 'the rebels' and one of the reasons the rebels have never been able to achieve any great degree of organization. They all hate each other almost as much as they hate Assad and his Alawalites.

[GostHacked]

I think your information is incomplete. The Free Syrian Army is, in fact, made up largely of Syrians, including many army defectors, and espouses a non-sectarian philosophy. The group you are probably thinking of is a much smaller group which was initially made up of a core of former Iraqi insurgents. There are also a couple of other groups which are Islamist oriented.

They have come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya and many other places. Personally I think the numbers that are thrown around by most MSM about the percentage of foreign fighters is lowballing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/world/middleeast/as-foreign-fighters-flood-syria-fears-of-a-new-extremist-haven.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

BEIRUT, Lebanon — As foreign fighters pour into Syria at an increasing clip, extremist groups are carving out pockets of territory that are becoming havens for Islamist militants, posing what United States and Western intelligence officials say may be developing into one of the biggest terrorist threats in the world today.

and...

But others are assembling under a new, even more extreme umbrella group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, that is merging some Syrians with fighters from around the world — Chechnya, Pakistan, Egypt and the West, as well as Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgent group that rose to prominence in the fight against the American occupation in the years after the 2003 invasion. The concern is that a new affiliate of Al Qaeda could be emerging from those groups.

The west helped arm and Turkey even gave the FSA a base of operations inside Turkey.

It was the fear of militants coming to dominate the opposition that caused the United States and its Western allies to hold off providing lethal aid to the Syrian opposition, at least until now. But as a result, counterterrorism analysts say, they lost a chance to influence the battle in Syria. Even Congressional supporters of the C.I.A.'s covert program to arm moderate elements of the Syrian opposition fear the delivery of weapons, set to begin this month, will be too little, too late.

The thing to keep in mind about Syria is it's not really a country.It was created by France in the 1920s, and none of the ethnic groups living around it has any particular affection for each other. The idea they could ever form a democracy is absurd, imho, so I would agree the options for the West in Syria are bad and worse. That's one of the reasons there hasn't been a focused support for 'the rebels' and one of the reasons the rebels have never been able to achieve any great degree of organization. They all hate each other almost as much as they hate Assad and his Alawalites.

Canada is not really a country then. The USA is not really a country then. By that standard we have a world full of not real countries.

[GostHacked]

The other thing is that democracy will take slower with the Middle East. Canada has had 125 years of practice now. The USA has had about 2 centuries to learn democracy and bring them to this stage. But Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, technically not a democracy, and the USA is a Republic, technically not a democracy.

Women in the USA got the right to vote in the early 1900s. Blacks got to vote in the 60s?

You are expecting a democracy to flourish overnight which is going to harm you more than good. This is called unrealistic expectations. To say they can never be that way is slamming another nail in their coffin. We need to do something other than bomb the crap out of these places to bring them democracy.

[Guest American Woman]

The other thing is that democracy will take slower with the Middle East.

That would include Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

Women in the USA got the right to vote in the early 1900s. Blacks got to vote in the 60s?

The 15th amendment gave Blacks the right to vote; it was ratified in 1870.

You are expecting a democracy to flourish overnight which is going to harm you more than good. This is called unrealistic expectations.

That's exactly what I've had to say in the "U.S. failure in Afghanistan" thread. Good to see we're on the same page.

To say they can never be that way is slamming another nail in their coffin.

Good to see you feel that way.

[GostHacked]

That would include Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

Yes indeed.

The 15th amendment gave Blacks the right to vote; it was ratified in 1870.

And yet still treated like second class citizens until someone like Rosa Parks and MLK came along.

That's exactly what I've had to say in the "U.S. failure in Afghanistan" thread. Good to see we're on the same page.

We are on the same page at the end yes and for some different reasons. The security void after the fall of Saddam Hussein allowed terror groups like Al-Queda to get some footing. We see weekly bombings there resulting in mass casualties, but we don't seem to mention that. Iraq is no longer anyone's problem but yet, turmoil and death is still going on weekly. Hands have been washed of it.

Good to see you feel that way.

To add, bombing Assad and the Syrian military, killing more people seems to fly in the face of any rhetoric of valuing life while condemning a chemical weapon attack that killed (what is being reported now) as close to 1500 people. Also with little concern or regard to the amount of deaths we have already seen from this conflict.

I really hope lessons of Iraq were learned and they have the solid evidence to prove that Assad's forces did it. The international community does not seem to be buying it this time. The blunders of Iraq were not that long ago that people are forgetting what happened there.