- Join Date
- Mar 2013
- Posts
- 3,587
So what might happen? Possibilities:Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed
1)We could just continue to let Syria massacre its people with chemical weapons, bombs and tanks.
2)The USA and other governments could supply the rebels with the heavier weapons they have asked for.
3)Russia might be persuaded to join the group of nations in the UN pressuring the Assad regime with sanctions, and Russia might cut off aid.
4)The US and its allies might locate where Assad is holding these weapons, and invade the country to take possession of these weapons.
5)If the rebels get weaker and Al Qaeda and its allies get stronger, then the USA and its allies might intervene to prevent Al Qaeda from taking over the Syrian government when Assad falls or is about to fall from power.
6)A group of nations might intervene to depose Assad and install the democratic rebel faction.
As I have predicted, the chances of greater US involvement here are high. We are in a 11/12-year cycle of US intervention, or events that lead to intervention in the next cycle. The main thing preventing this, is war-weariness from the still-ongoing events triggered by the previous cycle (9-11-2001). A minimal response is thus more-likely. If problems are left unsettled now though, the events of this year will likely lead to intervention at the next cycle in 2025.
So what would you hope to achieve by disposing Assad? The slaughter would only continue since there are many factions to the civil war. And then you have to defeat Assad in the first place which won't be a cakewalk. Syria is not Afghanistan. It has modern weapons, sophisticated antiaircraft systems not to mention C and B weaponry. Any intervention might soon turn pretty ugly. Besides, Assad represents the legitimate government which hitherto has kept the crazy bearded fanatics of his country in check. Any invasion would be tantamount to aggressive war which could result in counterattack or invasion of say, Turkey, which is a NATO country.
And then you'd risk war and in any event severely strained relations with Russia and China...
How could any "democratic" takeover by Muslim fanatics who just dream of imposing an anti-western theocracy be worth that?
"Taking over" Syria is by the way just an old absurd Neocon strategy in order to get to Iran and bring "democracy" to enslave the Middle East. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the present conflict in part is due to TPTB psi-ops. But sure, if anyone wants to be a puppet on a string to that, be my guest.
Last edited by Tussilago; 08-24-2013 at 03:06 PM.
INTP 1970 Core X
-All these things were true of Iraq in 1991, and largely, in 2003.
Thought someone would say that. Actually it's rather different, but never mind. I've already grown tired of the topic.
INTP 1970 Core X
Iraq was totally different in every respect, of course.
Don't lose sight of the fact that this is an Arab Spring uprising. It's young people rising up against a dictator. The only difference is that this dictator is more ruthless. There are factions, but a democratic takeover would not be a factional government.
But I just laid out the alternatives; not which option I recommend. I oppose an invasion now, as I've said, nor am I on board with neo-con strategies at all. Assad serves no purpose whatever though, except to create trouble. He is the worst of the lot. Mass murder does not keep anything "in check" except his own maniacal greed for power and blood. Nothing else. He has no legitimacy whatsoever. Crimes against humanity do not confer it. His fall would be nothing but a blessing. It is a fact though that the USA and its allies may decide that military action is needed to keep Assad from using WMD, and later to keep Al Qaeda out of power when Assad falls. I don't know if I myself favor such an action, but I could see how it might be necessary. It would not be a small task, and there's little appetite among Americans for it now. I do favor helping the democratic rebels with arms, and other supplies to help the people. With Assad using WMD, I think more pressure needs to be put on Russia to stop supplying the dictator. If Russia gets on board with action to retrieve the WMD, then that would make such an option less risky.
White supremacists like tussilago whine about minorities, and EU/NATO "oppression" when every objective study shows that the west is far more free than such countries such as russia and iran. They whine about us helping israel and supporting democracy in the middle east while they express support for the new fascists in countries such as russia, iran and belarus.
President Obama personally warned Syria a year ago this month that a "red line" in the conflict was the use of chemical weapons. Thus far, however, the US has not acted on Obama's threat.
President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sent out a Tweet on Friday calling what happened "an apparent CW (chemical weapons) attack." And the commander of US forces in the Mediterranean has ordered Navy warships to move closer to Syria to be ready for a possible cruise missile strike.
Meanwhile, US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is strongly suggesting that the Pentagon is moving forces into place ahead of possible military action against Syria.
Launching cruise missiles from the sea would not risk any American lives. It would be a punitive strike designed not to topple Syrian dictator Bashir Assad but to convince him he cannot get away with using chemical weapon
US commanders have prepared a range of "options" for Obama if he chooses to proceed with military strikes against Damascus, Hagel told reporters before landing in Kuala Lumpur.
"The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies," Hagel said.
"And that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets to be able to carry out different options — whatever the president might choose."
But Hagel declined to provide any details on the deployment of US ships, aircraft or troops, as the Obama administration reportedly contemplated cruise missile strikes against Assad's forces.
Hagel's comments came as a defense official said the US Navy would expand its presence in the Mediterranean with a fourth warship armed with cruise missiles....
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius (said) that all indications show that Syria's government was behind a "chemical massacre" near Damascus that the opposition claims killed hundreds.
"All the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the Bashar regime is responsible," Fabius said on a visit to Ramallah in the West Bank
"We ask that the UN team that is there can be deployed very quickly and make the necessary inspections," Fabius said. "The information which we have shows that this chemical massacre is of such gravity that it obviously cannot pass without a strong reaction," he added.
The US Sixth Fleet, with responsibility in the Mediterranean, has decided to keep the USS Mahan in the region instead of letting it return to its home port in Norfolk, Virginia.
Three other destroyers are currently deployed in the area — the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and the USS Ramage. All four warships are equipped with several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles.
The reinforcement would allow the Pentagon to act more rapidly if Obama were to order a military strike.
"The president has asked the Defense Department for options. Like always, the Defense Department is prepared and has been prepared to provide all options for all contingencies to the president of the United States," Hagel said.
The Pentagon chief made clear that no decision had been taken on whether to employ military force as the more than two-year-old conflict rages on.
US newspapers have suggested disagreements within the administration over the risks of another American military intervention in the Middle East.
In an interview aired earlier Friday on CNN, Obama voiced caution.
He said Syrian opposition allegations that hundreds of people had been killed in a gas attack near Damascus this week were more serious than previous charges against Assad's regime.
"What we've seen indicates clearly this is a big event, of grave concern," Obama said.
One year after warning that the use of chemical arms in the vicious Syrian conflict would cross a US "red line", Obama said Americans expect him to protect their long-term national security interests -- but avoid foreign entanglements.
"Sometimes what we've seen is folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations," Obama said.
He warned that America could get "drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."
The president also said that there were questions about whether the United States would violate international law if it attacked another country without a United Nations Security Council mandate.
And, after ending the Iraq war and as he brings troops home from Afghanistan, Obama noted the cost in US lives and financial resources of foreign military action.
Obama observed that the latest attack was conducted on a much wider scale than a previous one in Syria that the United States deemed to have been the result of chemical weapons.
On that occasion, Obama decided for the first time to send direct military aid to vetted Syrian rebels, though has declined to specify exactly what help Washington is providing.
Syria has vigorously denied its forces were guilty of a chemical attack on the rebel-held area.
Hagel, who began a week-long tour of Southeast Asia, said he expected American intelligence agencies to "swiftly" assess whether Damascus was to blame.
He warned that if the Assad regime had resorted to chemical weapons, "there may be another attack coming".
The US government would not rule out unilateral action, Hagel said, but he stressed the need to work with international "partners".
"If the intelligence and facts bear out what appears to be what happened — use of chemical weapons — then that is not just a United States issues, it's an international issue," he said.
"It violates every standard of international behavior."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Syr...o_code=14A24-1
I've been meaning to add this comment for at least a week or so now. On Sept. 9 Mars squares Saturn, and Saturn forms a sextile to stationary Pluto in the same month. It looks like a possible time for a military action to start. The USA and its allies are considering such a move now against Syria. This Mars-Saturn aspect is common at the start of wars. It does not mean that such an attack is highly likely. Skeptics will say I am weaseling out of a prediction. And I know I am late in announcing it here. But some aspects are more likely to correspond to certain events than others, and a confluence of indicators increases the odds. Right now, all I can say is that the odds are increasing. If it happens, it does not look like a long-term or major engagement.
Define "white supremacist", so I know what you are accusing me of.
INTP 1970 Core X
Arab Spring my ass. What "spring" comes from the hardships imposed by dwindling oil exports and bumping up against the limits of growth? Just what you see in Egypt and Syria, a lot of anger and social frustration channeled into some form of mindless political or religious aggression or the other. Democratic takeover is a delusion. Looks more like the disintegration of Yugoslavia to me than any kind of "spring". What "spring" goes on for two years with violence and civil war only escalating?
A US military invasion/bombing campaign prompted by the lame excuse about chemical weapons use, will do nothing but kill innocent Syrian soldiers and civilians. It won't solve anything on the ground. We have no idea who actually perpetrated the massacre. Could have been the rebels, could have been the regime, but more likely perhaps some warlord acting outside of jurisdiction and without orders from the government. Like Putin said, what would the regime possibly gain by using such weapons against its own subjects, especially as it's winning the war? It could even be something more sinister, like US black ops or Israelis having something to do with it on some level.
Which would make it look precisely like the psycho conditioning build up to Iraq I and II in fact (faked evidence of WMD's; fake tears about babies killed in Quwaiti hospital) or 9/11. The real target of the chemical attack wouldn't be any Syrian rebels, but an easily manipulated American public.
"Ever get the feeling you are being cheated?"
I agree Assad is just another tyrant, of course. I think this should go through the UN, with a proper investigation into the events.But I just laid out the alternatives; not which option I recommend. I oppose an invasion now, as I've said, nor am I on board with neo-con strategies at all. Assad serves no purpose whatever though, except to create trouble. He is the worst of the lot. Mass murder does not keep anything "in check" except his own maniacal greed for power and blood. Nothing else. He has no legitimacy whatsoever. Crimes against humanity do not confer it. His fall would be nothing but a blessing. It is a fact though that the USA and its allies may decide that military action is needed to keep Assad from using WMD, and later to keep Al Qaeda out of power when Assad falls. I don't know if I myself favor such an action, but I could see how it might be necessary. It would not be a small task, and there's little appetite among Americans for it now. I do favor helping the democratic rebels with arms, and other supplies to help the people. With Assad using WMD, I think more pressure needs to be put on Russia to stop supplying the dictator. If Russia gets on board with action to retrieve the WMD, then that would make such an option less risky.
Last edited by Tussilago; 09-06-2013 at 07:27 PM.
INTP 1970 Core X
To boot, we are just past the peak of Solar Cycle 24, FWIW.
Jupiter and its orbit is the main aspect or cause of the solar cycle, since they are both about 11-12 years long. It is also the indicator of the American intervention cycle. They appear to largely coincide.
Frustration with lack of economic opportunity among young people is a major aspect, but they also want freedom like other young people that they see in other countries. The Spring itself may be over; but that's what started it, wherever it leads. Revolutions are never easy, nor do they go where you want them to go very often. And tyrants taking over in a Revolution is a common historical theme (celebrated in the famous Who song, my all-time fave). None of that means it wasn't a sincere democratic movement. Because it's hard to overthrow a tyrant, and replace him with something better, does not mean the Revolution didn't exist.
No, we pretty much know it was Assad's forces who did it; the evidence is clear and convincing. The Russians and Iranians may say otherwise, but they are Assad's allies. You can't second-guess Assad and claim he went through some kind of rational process. Butchers and thugs don't necessarily do that. He just did it because he thought he could, although there's some evidence he didn't order it directly. Blaming it on the USA or Israel is just conspiracy theory, and is nonsense. We need to face up to what is happening, and if we turn away and do nothing, we can't rationalize our way out of the results of our inaction by blaming it on our own government or saying it didn't happen. You don't have to go that far to stay within the realm of rationality yourself, and still oppose bombing or invasion. You are right to stop with your first two sentences in the above quote.A US military invasion/bombing campaign prompted by the lame excuse about chemical weapons use, will do nothing but kill innocent Syrian soldiers and civilians. It won't solve anything on the ground. We have no idea who actually perpetrated the massacre. Could have been the rebels, could have been the regime, but more likely perhaps some warlord acting outside of jurisdiction and without orders from the government. Like Putin said, what would the regime possibly gain by using such weapons against its own subjects, especially as it's winning the war? It could even be something more sinister, like US black ops or Israelis having something to do with it on some level....Which would make it look precisely like the psycho conditioning build up to Iraq I and II in fact (faked evidence of WMD's; fake tears about babies killed in Quwaiti hospital) or 9/11. The real target of the chemical attack wouldn't be any Syrian rebels, but an easily manipulated American public.
"Ever get the feeling you are being cheated?"
We already had that investigation, and the UN is not viable instrument now because of the Russian veto. Russia needs to be convinced first that Assad is not a viable ally, and doesn't deserve support. Putin and everyone else needs to see that only if Assad goes will there be any peace. The rebels are not going to negotiate with Assad; nor should they. He is simply a beast that needs to be put out of its misery. That does not mean bombing him is the answer, for the reasons you yourself stated. But arming the rebels, and negotiating with his supporters, might bear fruit.I agree Assad is just another tyrant, of course. I think this should go through the UN, with a proper investigation into the events.
Sure there exist[ed] sincere democrats. They're just not the only party involved.
Really?No, we pretty much know it was Assad's forces who did it; the evidence is clear and convincing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idyFbly07Ug#t=79
Maybe we shouldn't be so damn sure before we decide who did what here? Even though, it could of course still be the government.
And the United States is Israel's ally, so how is that different?The Russians and Iranians may say otherwise, but they are Assad's allies.
Why not? It would be prudent not to impose a villain comic book character on someone like Assad simply because he is not a democrat. Running such a country cannot be a simple task.You can't second-guess Assad and claim he went through some kind of rational process. Butchers and thugs don't necessarily do that.
Yeah, for instance that after all, it would not have been in the regime's interest to call down B-52 strikes on itself.He just did it because he thought he could, although there's some evidence he didn't order it directly.
On the contrary, I think we should be free to speculate on any potential scenario. We know the US faked evidence prior to attacking Iraq twice, so why couldn't something shady behind the throne of Obama pull off something similar again?Blaming it on the USA or Israel is just conspiracy theory, and is nonsense.
While it's a good thing to, say, avert mass murder like Vietnam did when invading Cambodia, you need to realize that essentially, the United States have no responsibility for what goes on in Syria and no "right" or obligation to meddle in its internal affairs. No more than any other country.We need to face up to what is happening, and if we turn away and do nothing, we can't rationalize our way out of the results of our inaction by blaming it on our own government or saying it didn't happen.
Well, thanks.You don't have to go that far to stay within the realm of rationality yourself, and still oppose bombing or invasion. You are right to stop with your first two sentences in the above quote.
Or those "rebels" might be guys who are prepared to use Sarine gas on the population. What will replace Assad is the important question if he was ousted, not how to go about deposing him.We already had that investigation, and the UN is not viable instrument now because of the Russian veto. Russia needs to be convinced first that Assad is not a viable ally, and doesn't deserve support. Putin and everyone else needs to see that only if Assad goes will there be any peace. The rebels are not going to negotiate with Assad; nor should they. He is simply a beast that needs to be put out of its misery. That does not mean bombing him is the answer, for the reasons you yourself stated. But arming the rebels, and negotiating with his supporters, might bear fruit.
Last edited by Tussilago; 09-07-2013 at 11:21 AM.
INTP 1970 Core X
But they are the vast majority.
Only anti-Americans believe that stuff.Maybe we shouldn't be so damn sure before we decide who did what here? Even though, it could of course still be the government.
Israel is not supplying the rebels. If they did, the rebels would lose credibility.And the United States is Israel's ally, so how is that different?
He is such a villain. No need to impose anything.Why not? It would be prudent not to impose a villain comic book character on someone like Assad simply because he is not a democrat. Running such a country cannot be a simple task.
Assad thinks it is in his interest to murder as many of his people as he can. How he does it is of no concern to him.Yeah, for instance that after all, it would not have been in the regime's interest to call down B-52 strikes on itself.
Speculations are no basis for policy decisions.On the contrary, I think we should be free to speculate on any potential scenario. We know the US faked evidence prior to attacking Iraq twice, so why couldn't something shady behind the throne of Obama pull off something similar again?
Like the French meddled when they helped OUR Revolution?While it's a good thing to, say, avert mass murder like Vietnam did when invading Cambodia, you need to realize that essentially, the United States have no responsibility for what goes on in Syria and no "right" or obligation to meddle in its internal affairs. No more than any other country.
First things first. But thinking ahead is being done. The USA is being careful about who it supports.Or those "rebels" might be guys who are prepared to use Sarine gas on the population. What will replace Assad is the important question if he was ousted, not how to go about deposing him.
Doesn't the recent attention to the Syrian crisis in the wake of this news make you think that the reason we here in the US consider it so critical is the still vivid memories of what happened in Europe seven decades ago with the concentration camps and chemical warfare there and some guilt for not having moved to stop Hitler earlier before he had the chance to do so much damage?
Not in the slightest. There are certainly people demanding that we intervene on humanitarian ground. Some of them are even sincere, but in that case the parallels would be Kosovo or Rwanda, not something that happened long before most of these people were born.Tell me, where exactly do you see the parallels?
Is Bashar Assad a charismatic revolutionary? Far from it, he's a boring little man who inhereited his position.
Is he likely to embark on a campaign of world conquest, starting with his immediate neighbors? No indication of that. They actually withdrew from Lebanon during his rule.
Is he likely to start ethnically cleansing minorities? The exact opposite, his most fervent supporters are all members of the various niche sects and religions, terrified that they are going to be subject to genocide by the majority if the regime falls. Has he been taking advantage of that? Of course he has, he's a dictator fighting for power. But again, wrong parallel.
Look, none of this is to suggest that he is a nice man. He is not, he's a dictator. But all of the (mostly boomer) dickheads running around this board talking of the "psychopathic" Assad torturing and murdering children with his bare hands in his spare time are barking up the wrong tree. He's a doctor, a younger son who had the keys to the kingdom thrust upon him by his father shortly before his death. His wife was born and raised in Britain. No, he's just an asshole who casually authorized his military to suppress the wogs once they started getting uppity and threatening his family's comfortable lifestyle. In this he is little different from the Western assholes baying for blood in this or that Third World country in the name of peace/oil/prestige/international norms/insert meme here. The only real difference is that he bears almost all of the responsibility himself, as the head of government, whereas those other assholes get to dilute their's in the comparative anonymity and safety of a crowd of millions half the world away from their intended victims.
You want to start to drawing parallels between Bashar Assad and other people? Look in a damn mirror.
EDITED FOR SPELLING AND PHRASING
Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 09-07-2013 at 07:59 PM.
He is cleansing his country of everyone who opposes him.
No, that's not right. Assad is the worst, even worse than Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi. He is a psychopath, and I reject your label of boomer dickhead for saying so. He clearly sees no problem in murdering and torturing 100,000 of his own people and counting, and if that's not a psychopath I don't know what is. Now we had George W. Bush, Lyndon Johnson, Truman, Nixon and what not, plus Obama's high civilian-to-terrorist drone kill ratio. But they were/are attacking foreigners in support of what they thought was a good cause in the national interest, not attacking their own people merely for opposing their policies. Bush did not kill 100,000 of us on-the-street protesters in 2003 (including me Jordan) when we called Bush all kinds of names for attacking Iraq. But that is exactly what Assad is doing. He is not merely a dictator; he is a mass murderer. There is nothing to do about him except help his people dispose of him. Period. Why even discuss the matter? So what if some of us boomer dickheads call him names? What difference does that make? How does that excuse the USA from not doing the right things now?Look, none of this is to suggest that he is a nice man. He is not, he's a dictator. But all of the (mostly boomer) dickheads running around this board talking of the "psychopathic" Assad torturing and murdering children with his bare hands in his spare time are barking up the wrong tree. He's a doctor, a younger son who had the keys to the kingdom thrust upon him by his father shortly before his death. His wife was born and raised in Britain. No, he's just an asshole who casually authorized his military to suppress the wogs once they started getting uppity and threatening his family's comfortable lifestyle. In this he is little different from the Western assholes baying for blood in this or that Third World country in the name of peace/oil/prestige/international norms/insert meme here. The only real difference is that he bears almost all of the responsibility himself, as the head of government, whereas those other assholes get to dilute their's in the comparative anonymity and safety of a crowd of millions half the world away from their intended victims.
You want to start to drawing parallels between Bashar Assad and other people? Look in a damn mirror.
I'm sorry, ignoring all of your tedious bullshit for the moment, are you alleging that there is a moral difference between killing foreigners versus locals? Please elaborate on that one.
There is a difference between a president doing what he feels is in the national interest, and what the lessons of history dictate to him, using the institutions as he understands and can use them; and a dictator crushing opposition to his own policies by murdering his own people. A difference; although I strongly disapprove of both. And in any case, it's an irrelevant point on your part. It does not matter what past or current US presidents have done. I am in favor of putting GW Bush in jail for what he did. That does not mean I am not in favor of executing Assad for what he is doing. I don't even think the USA should invade or bomb him and his camp, or execute him. His people need to do that. I just think we need to tip the scales using the power we have, financial and diplomatic. You call that bullshit and warmongering. Your impolite approach to debate reveals your intentions.
Guilt? For something that happened before the vast majority of us were even born?
Frankly if a person feels any shred of guilt for an event they weren't even alive to witness, that person is a moron. A real one... They probably have a membership card and everything.
George? Is that you?
I wasn't talking about ex-presidents, Eric, I was talking about people like you specifically.
Now, I believe you were going to tell us how killing foreigners is morally different from killing Americans?
Yeah, but I was talking about presidents.
No, I wasn't. That was your rhetorical trap.Now, I believe you were going to tell us how killing foreigners is morally different from killing Americans?
The only killing I was discussing was that being done by presidents.