Syria

The motion carried the specific caveat about UN weapon inspectors evidence, so the defeat for Cameron/Government in parliament is actually quite surprising, I think. It was very, very narrow though:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

I was listening to an interview of Philip Hammond (the Defence Secretary) yesterday, where he was being asked why we shouldn't wait for the UN weapons inspectors to report (& why he thought it was the Syrian Government that was responsible, etc) --& he literally cited Youtube as the evidence so far, in the absence of any UN inspectors reports. Absolutely incredible.
 
1150249_523086884439003_313159477_n.jpg
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The motion carried the specific caveat about UN weapon inspectors evidence, so the defeat for Cameron/Government in parliament is actually quite surprising, I think. It was very, very narrow though:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

I was listening to an interview of Philip Hammond (the Defence Secretary) yesterday, where he was being asked why we shouldn't wait for the UN weapons inspectors to report (& why he thought it was the Syrian Government that was responsible, etc) --& he literally cited Youtube as the evidence so far, in the absence of any UN inspectors reports. Absolutely incredible.
Click to expand...

They have no evidence to blame Assad.
U.S. claims otherwise, but they won't even allow Russia to analyze their findings. It's "confidential".

They just repeat "we know that regime is responsible".

I have a better option, why doesn't Obama ask Syrian U.S. citizens for opinion?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=449165015196912&l=b6d1f655de

Even the 1999 attacks on Serbia were based on a lie. But nobody cared because Milosevic was a genocidal idiot.
The invasion of Iraq was based on a lie. Nobody cared because Saddam was a proven threat to countries around him and minorities in Iraq.
The operation over Libya was a lie. The critique was there not because of Gadaffi, but because U.S. and their "partners" double-crossed Russia and China. Gadaffi turned his back on "traditional" allies, went to bed with Silvio Berlusconi, and then got back-stabbed.

Now the scenario is completely different. Syria has friends and allies which are not going to back down. I hope that popular protests against this bullshit render any chance of "intervention" as impossible.
There are 10 sides to this story. I wonder about your awareness level regarding Russia - Saudi Arabia relations.
 
Saddam "had chemical-based weapons of mass destruction". Which was a lie. After 2003 it was reformulated to "had a large program related to WMD-activities", and "never gave up on his intentions of having WMDs".

Meanwhile, Egypt denied Red Sea port access to merchant ship sailing under Israeli flag. Tamarod movement (people who got Muslim Brotherhood dethroned) called for Suez blockade for all vessels of intervention force, and declared assistance to SAA in wartime as "national duty".
 
I know what the lie was. Your remark that "nobody cared" spawned my reaction. Or did the millions of people in the streets in early 2003 count as "nobody"?
 
An NBC poll says 80% of Americans want Obama to get Congressional approval before any action. Look up some old Joe Biden quotes where he said a President should be impeached if they did military action w/o Congressional approval and the multitude of Obama quotes about conditions for military action.

But, the administration seems to be leaning towards taking action soon ... something has to give.
 
bearfan said:
An NBC poll says 80% of Americans want Obama to get Congressional approval before any action. Look up some old Joe Biden quotes where he said a President should be impeached if they did military action w/o Congressional approval and the multitude of Obama quotes about conditions for military action.

But, the administration seems to be leaning towards taking action soon ... something has to give.
Click to expand...

The US opinion seems to realize (or think) that the US are in a sort of "damned if you do. damned if you don't" situation?
 
Rand Paul has it exactly right that the US has no vital interests in Syria, which has traditionally been the deciding factor for whether or not a country gets involved in a conflict.

Getting involved in Syria is the ultimate "world policeman" action. And 0bama was supposedly an anti-war candidate. He even got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. Not sure how any of this squares with getting involved in a conflict with no intention of ending it. 0bama's Syria involvement has nothing to do with Syria or peace, and everything to do with 0bama and political posturing.
 
Perun said:
I know what the lie was. Your remark that "nobody cared" spawned my reaction. Or did the millions of people in the streets in early 2003 count as "nobody"?
Click to expand...

Nobody cared in "negative" sense for mentioned rulers. They had little, if any, international support right before the attacks.
My point is that Syria (as in current Syrian state and current Syrian government), have international support of their own.

I agree, I think there is a line of thought that we declared we would act of chemical weapons were used .. but few want any part of this.
Click to expand...

Your government is involved in supplying chemical weapons to "rebels" for over a year now. And they have been also saying three things :

- Rebels are incapable of performing CW-armed missile strikes
- We are worried that Assad is going to use CWs against Syrian people
- Usage of CWs is crossing the red line, which means we start throwing Tomahawks

By performing a logic analysis, one can easily conclude, that any sort of chemical warfare in Syria will result in NATO's direct involvement in overthrowing Assad.
With that kind of circular logic, they don't need any additional evidence.

In reality, Syrians have a lot of hard evidence that Al-Nusra did it. And Al-Nusra did it.
 
It is entirely possible that some group of the rebels have used them ... I do not know for sure ...If someone is look for a side to declare "the good guys", the are SOL since that does not seem to exist here.
Obama seems to be siding with the rebels or at least against Assad .. at least that is what he, Biden, Kerry, and most anyone else in the administration is saying.
 
Hahaha this is getting amusing. Kerry's speech, that is.
"We know", "we know", "we know". Where's the fucking data? Russians provided ballistic information to UN, with complete SAA deployment documentation.

Do you trust these people?
European nations are running away from this. France is the only one left.
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"We also have a president that does what he says". Oh my fucking God.
Check the comments and the quantity of deleted, eg. "moderated" comments.

In civilized societies any distrust should be handled by establishing facts from fiction. That would involve presenting data from both sides, eg. stuff they consider a "fact".
So we have hundreds of pages of documentation on one side, and a Youtube videos + social media data mining + alleged high-level intelligence on the other.

Somebody's lying there.

We can discuss on some other thread why you shouldn't "distrust" current Russian gov't. In this instance they're saying the truth, and yours are lying.
 
I do not trust Obama at all, I voted against him twice (and Kerry for that matter) ... I think he is an empty suit and all his 2008 rhetoric was 10000000% BS and sadly tons of people bought into it.

The Russians may or may not be correct here, but they have tons of history to overcome before I would trust anything they say without extensive proof.
 
I think it's a pretty safe bet to say the government is lying, no matter which country you're talking about. Putin is an old-style KGB popagandist, and 0bama is no better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top