DescentBB

Is it about to start over Syria?

World war? No.

That said, it's starting to look more and more like we'll be involved.

No, white people don't get that bent out of shape over brown or black people.

ThunderBunny wrote:Is it about to start over Syria?

nah, but actually, I agree that the situation has some potential to spiral out of anyone's control.

Syria doesn't have enough value for a World War and they are not necessarily a military threat to their neighbors. They don't have anything that anyone wants as far as resources and geography go. This is part of the reason the civil war can continue on. It's really sad that large, capable nations only move to action when it is in their direct economic interests. I doubt it will spill into a World War, but eventually there will have to be international intervention. I hope we can agree to a plan sooner than later. Rather than a war I see Syria as a great opportunity for international understanding, cooperation, and peace.

vision wrote:Syria doesn't have enough value for a World War and they are not necessarily a military threat to their neighbors. They don't have anything that anyone wants as far as resources and geography go. This is part of the reason the civil war can continue on. It's really sad that large, capable nations only move to action when it is in their direct economic interests. I doubt it will spill into a World War, but eventually there will have to be international intervention. I hope we can agree to a plan sooner than later. Rather than a war I see Syria as a great opportunity for international understanding, cooperation, and peace.

the problem is(although I suspect the world response will be restrained), the same could have been said of Bosnia-Herzogovina(sp?) in the early 20th century, and look how that turned out. Syria presents some of the same issues, and one can only hope that the world has learned something.....

World War wont start until Oil is found under Israeli soil.

World Wars are always the result of destroyed economies. If the economy collapses, it's on then.

World war? I very much doubt it, though this does have the potential to make Iraq and Afghanistan look like squabbles in the playground. I'm a little worried about this one so i got the family's gasmasks out the garden shed.

best of luck to you, FC.......there was a piece this AM on public radio regarding Israeli citizens getting gas masks ready. We can only hope you all don't have to use them.

Good to hear from you, FC. Mind giving us your take on the situation? I know I'd appreciate a less distant perspective.

The country seems to be holding its breath at the moment, but resigned to the inevitable. The bombshelters in the area are being checked and readied, the gas masks are being re-issued. That's what is really scaring people. In 1991 we were all sitting in our sealed rooms waiting for Saddam Hussain to throw his chemical laden scud missiles our way, and they proved to be just large fairly innacurate bombs (still pretty scary though). In 2006, in my area in the north there were thousands of smaller katyusha's fired from Lebanon by hezbollah, again these were fairly innacurate. This time though we all know someone over there, a) has them, and b) is crazy enough to use them. If they do hit Israel with chemicals, i fear the response from us will be very intense.

I do not understand who gave the U.S. the right to bomb Syria and introduce their troops? Syria has declared war on the United States? No. Syria is a threat to Americans, territorial integrity, or the so-called national security of the United States? There is none. Maybe Syria has become a nuclear power and has shown a willingness to attack other countries? Again, no. I think the whole thing as always in the economic causes. Some countries, including Russia, more successful than the United States began to develop a market out there. They began to build factories there, create jobs and develop the economy of Syria. The U.S. did not like it, and as always they have decided to re-divide the sphere of economic and political influence through their organized Civil War, with the help of the armed forces of the United States under false pretenses, spit on the opinion of the international community. I would not be surprised if the next major terrorist attack in the United States will be organized by the Syrians in revenge for the blood of their loved ones. In addition, the U.S. tried to drag Russia into the conflict, hoping that Russia will protect its business in Syria and with the help of troops to later accuse her of all sins. It has long been the main instigator and the source of many wars, it is only the United States, in my opinion.

So illegal use of chemical weapons and mass murder are acceptable ways of life in Russia.

I agree with you, Sigma, it shouldn't be the United States who takes responsibility for stopping the chemical attacks on civilians. It should be all of us. This is our time to stop a Holocaust, a Rwanda or a Bosnia ect. Wherever such acts are committed, regardless of religion, race or simple business interests, they have to be stopped.

sigma wrote:I do not understand who gave the U.S. the right to bomb Syria and introduce their troops? Syria has declared war on the United States? No. Syria is a threat to Americans, territorial integrity, or the so-called national security of the United States? There is none. Maybe Syria has become a nuclear power and has shown a willingness to attack other countries? Again, no. I think the whole thing as always in the economic causes. Some countries, including Russia, more successful than the United States began to develop a market out there. They began to build factories there, create jobs and develop the economy of Syria. The U.S. did not like it, and as always they have decided to re-divide the sphere of economic and political influence through their organized Civil War, with the help of the armed forces of the United States under false pretenses, spit on the opinion of the international community. I would not be surprised if the next major terrorist attack in the United States will be organized by the Syrians in revenge for the blood of their loved ones. In addition, the U.S. tried to drag Russia into the conflict, hoping that Russia will protect its business in Syria and with the help of troops to later accuse her of all sins. It has long been the main instigator and the source of many wars, it is only the United States, in my opinion.

I think everything you said is accurate. However, America doesn't necessarily look at Syria in a vacuum. We look at the Middle East as a whole when thinking of our interests and security. We claim Israel as a protectorate of sorts, as well as use that relationship as an excuse when it suits us.

Even though we have helped create the 'enemies' we see there they still exist as a threat to us and so weapons of mass destruction that are also easily transported by potential terrorists will cause us to panic. With no justification other than fear we will likely strike out to try and control the WMD host country or destroy their stockpiles.
That will take place in addition to, or in spite of, any other action or inaction we engage in the region. It is a survival instinct reaction that certainly gets in the way of diplomacy but we see it as effective in the short term and often it also serves as an unspoken threat, as leverage, in future bargaining.

When war breaks out there is little concern for what we have a 'right' to do, it is always about what we can get away with. That is one of the advantages of being a major player. We arent the only major player doing that, no doubt you can find similar actions that Russia has taken...

I have grave doubts that the US can accomplish anything positive in Syria. This is a job for the Arab League to cope with, and lord knows we've sent them enough military hardware over the years to do so. Once again, the US will be seen as meddlesome and overbearing in a region it doesn't understand, and once again, we spend money to no good end. In Egypt, at least, you have the interests in the Suez Canal, Israels long Western border and a huge populace, some of whom even regard the US favorably. Syria? Pfft, let their neighbors deal with it.

Oh, and while some of you are convinced that I support anything the Obama administration does, on domestic or foreign policy matters, this isn't one of them. No one should have drawn 'Red Lines' over a damn thing, and no one in the admin should be bowing to political pressure to deal with this matter. Hell, it has become recently common knowledge that the Reagan administration not only knew of Iraq using chemical weapons upon Iranians, they were encouraged by the news, and thus did NOTHING.

sigma wrote:I do not understand who gave the U.S. the right to bomb Syria and introduce their troops? Syria has declared war on the United States? No. Syria is a threat to Americans, territorial integrity, or the so-called national security of the United States? There is none. Maybe Syria has become a nuclear power and has shown a willingness to attack other countries? Again, no. I think the whole thing as always in the economic causes. Some countries, including Russia, more successful than the United States began to develop a market out there. They began to build factories there, create jobs and develop the economy of Syria. The U.S. did not like it, and as always they have decided to re-divide the sphere of economic and political influence through their organized Civil War, with the help of the armed forces of the United States under false pretenses, spit on the opinion of the international community. I would not be surprised if the next major terrorist attack in the United States will be organized by the Syrians in revenge for the blood of their loved ones. In addition, the U.S. tried to drag Russia into the conflict, hoping that Russia will protect its business in Syria and with the help of troops to later accuse her of all sins. It has long been the main instigator and the source of many wars, it is only the United States, in my opinion.

I would have to agree with you, up until the point where you believe the U.S. is out for itself. I don't think you're looking big picture enough. Our country may be playing the part of the aggressor, but I'm pretty sure it's not in our interest either, truth be told. I expect American's ultimately to lose at the end of all of this, in the interest of whoever is pulling the strings.

...but, it does nicely offset some of the sequestration cuts in military expenditures, huh? They wouldn't be considering that, though, right? Nahhhhh.

Robinson, why the USA remembers such concepts, how the sovereignty, freedom, observance of human rights, legality, only in relation to Americans? Why the USA considers all other people on a planet, except Americans as people of the second grade? It doesn't seem to you, what it smells as fascism? By the way, at the moment to the USA on many signs reminds Germany of 1935. Same ambitions, accumulation of military power, violation of international treaties and obligations, unscrupulousness and immorality of policy. All know long ago that the USA it is an economic colossus on clay feet. But this colossus can't stop expansion any more and listen to a reason voice. All know that Islamic radicalism, training of terrorists is financed by the USA. It was necessary to provoke only Russia to armed conflict that the mankind again saw tens of millions innocent victims, pollution by radiation of a half of a planet, a contamination of near space, and as a result, total decline and smashing once prospering next super - empires. The history is cyclic, you that forgot?

callmeslick, you are right in many respects, in my opinion.

WoW talk about a cold war mentality.

callmeslick wrote:...but, it does nicely offset some of the sequestration cuts in military expenditures, huh? They wouldn't be considering that, though, right? Nahhhhh.

so then why did Obama propose them if it was such a devastating event?

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...but, it does nicely offset some of the sequestration cuts in military expenditures, huh? They wouldn't be considering that, though, right? Nahhhhh.

so then why did Obama propose them if it was such a devastating event?

because they felt them to be so onerous that Congress wouldn't be reckless enough to allow them to stand. Silly them.

Back on topic: what does anyone think the US is going to do to actually obviate chemical weapons use in Syria?

callmeslick wrote:Back on topic: what does anyone think the US is going to do to actually obviate chemical weapons use in Syria?

and at the same time as other countries to avoid the intervention of the CIA and the U.S. military in the internal affairs of these countries.

Callmeslick wrote:because they felt them to be so onerous that Congress wouldn't be reckless enough to allow them to stand. Silly them.

Whaaaatt? Did you just said that something the President did was congress' fault because they went along with it? Tell me you did not just say that.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Callmeslick wrote:because they felt them to be so onerous that Congress wouldn't be reckless enough to allow them to stand. Silly them.

Whaaaatt? Did you just said that something the President did was congress' fault because they went along with it? Tell me you did not just say that.

I am telling you the very public knowledge of the reasoning behind the sequester proposal. After that proposal(which did originate with Jack Lew in the White House) went forth, it was Congress who voted for it, and Congress who chose to let it stand. Them's the facts, Jack.

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Back on topic: what does anyone think the US is going to do to actually obviate chemical weapons use in Syria?

and at the same time as other countries to avoid the intervention of the CIA and the U.S. military in the internal affairs of these countries.

this IS, as was stated, a sort of cold-war mentality, Sigma. Those days are over, to some degree, at least.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Callmeslick wrote:because they felt them to be so onerous that Congress wouldn't be reckless enough to allow them to stand. Silly them.

Whaaaatt? Did you just said that something the President did was congress' fault because they went along with it? Tell me you did not just say that.

I am telling you the very public knowledge of the reasoning behind the sequester proposal. After that proposal(which did originate with Jack Lew in the White House) went forth, it was Congress who voted for it, and Congress who chose to let it stand. Them's the facts, Jack.

Noooo, what you were trying to tell us is that the White House proposed what they felt was a "onerous"/"reckless" course of action, so it was Congress's fault for "allowing them to stand". That's bull★■◆● and you ought to know better.

sigma wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Back on topic: what does anyone think the US is going to do to actually obviate chemical weapons use in Syria?

and at the same time as other countries to avoid the intervention of the CIA and the U.S. military in the internal affairs of these countries.

and we all know Russia and China don't do anything like that HUH

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Callmeslick wrote:because they felt them to be so onerous that Congress wouldn't be reckless enough to allow them to stand. Silly them.

Whaaaatt? Did you just said that something the President did was congress' fault because they went along with it? Tell me you did not just say that.

I am telling you the very public knowledge of the reasoning behind the sequester proposal. After that proposal(which did originate with Jack Lew in the White House) went forth, it was Congress who voted for it, and Congress who chose to let it stand. Them's the facts, Jack.

and it was the President that proposed it and the President that said he would veto any attempt to get around it. THATS A FACT JACK.

apparently it was so devastating when the white house thought of it now was it

callmeslick wrote:I have grave doubts that the US can accomplish anything positive in Syria. This is a job for the Arab League to cope with, and lord knows we've sent them enough military hardware over the years to do so.

Arab League. If they can't do anything then it should be a UN action with the approval of everyone. I just hope our idiot administration doesn't get involved. Imagine how stupid it looks to be in a position where your only options are to either help Al-Qaeda or help Iran -- both of whom they have spent the last decade demonizing. It's beautiful really. Idiots in the White House.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:I have grave doubts that the US can accomplish anything positive in Syria. This is a job for the Arab League to cope with, and lord knows we've sent them enough military hardware over the years to do so.

Arab League. If they can't do anything then it should be a UN action with the approval of everyone. I just hope our idiot administration doesn't get involved. Imagine how stupid it looks to be in a position where your only options are to either help Al-Qaeda or help Iran -- both of whom they have spent the last decade demonizing. It's beautiful really. Idiots in the White House.

idiots all around, it would seem. The White House at least seemed reluctant for months while the Senate was chock full of folks ready to send in the Marines.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Noooo, what you were trying to tell us is that the White House proposed what they felt was a "onerous"/"reckless" course of action, so it was Congress's fault for "allowing them to stand". That's **** and you ought to know better.

no, I said onerous, which is NOT the same as 'reckless'. They reckoned the cuts would be unpleasant enough for Congress to fear the consequential backlash from their constituents. It hasn't, yet.....

sigma wrote:Robinson, why the USA remembers such concepts, how the sovereignty, freedom, observance of human rights, legality, only in relation to Americans? Why the USA considers all other people on a planet, except Americans as people of the second grade? It doesn't seem to you, what it smells as fascism?

Internally we are far from Fascist and internationally I don't think the definition is of much use since all nations put themselves first whether they are internally of a single cause or not.
We are generally more inclined to promote human rights and rule of law than Russia ever has. Yet we are willing to break our own rules to preserve our own best interests....I'm not arguing that makes everything we do justified. I'm merely telling it like it is.
Welcome to the real world. And again don't think for a minute that Russia has any kind of moral authority over the US in such discussions.

sigma wrote:By the way, at the moment to the USA on many signs reminds Germany of 1935. Same ambitions, accumulation of military power, violation of international treaties and obligations, unscrupulousness and immorality of policy. All know long ago that the USA it is an economic colossus on clay feet. But this colossus can't stop expansion any more and listen to a reason voice.

We haven't expanded. Iraq, Afghanastan, etc. we go in and meddle with specific dynamics and we leave hoping we end up with a more compliant regime when we leave but regardless of the outcome they are sovereign and autonomous. The Soviets wrote the book on expansion....well maybe the second book, the English wrote the first in what we call modern times anyway.
The 1935 Germany reference seems a little off too. We aren't building up to go conquer, we are actually scaling down. Our methods are to take over in more subtle ways. Our military is a minor piece on that chess board. It is like a bishop and rook. Our queen is our wealth.

sigma wrote:All know that Islamic radicalism, training of terrorists is financed by the USA. It was necessary to provoke only Russia to armed conflict that the mankind again saw tens of millions innocent victims, pollution by radiation of a half of a planet, a contamination of near space, and as a result, total decline and smashing once prospering next super - empires. The history is cyclic, you that forgot?

Wow, covering a lot there! We funded the birth of al Queda by helping the mujahideen fight the Soviets. Other than that we haven't done much to help the radicals. We were very short sighted in that regard once the Soviets were retreating we packed up and left the region to its own devices. Not a proud moment when I use the benefit of hindsight to assess it but that is he nature of nations when they reach beyond their own borders they tend to leave carnage and resentment in their wake. Again one look in a Russin mirror and surely it is a familiar face you see....

Not sure what you mean by "once prospering next -super empires". Sadams Iraq was on the verge of fitting that. If so yes, we used him as an excuse to go and accomplish ....well....nothing good that I can see. If you meant Japan I think they got what was due and they have recovered nicely. They are an ally now, and not because we kept our boot on their necks. There was no 50 years of occupation and now we redraw borders as you have seen your country do to countless countries.

I'm sorry if this seems like I'm trying to put Russia down, I'm not really, I don't think they have done anything much different than we have. The methods and tools differ but ultimately we are two of a kind. We put ourselves first as a nation and hope for better from ourselves as well as others.

as I read it(and correct me if I read it wrong, Sigma), I think Sigma was suggesting the bit about once prospering empires in regard to his own nation. Also, Sigma, what on earth do you mean by suggesting the US is responsible for nuclear pollution? Your own nation, in one event, contributed more life-threatening radiation to the planet than virtually everything else that has ever occurred, put together(and yes, I am including the Japanese meltdown). Vast acreage of once productive Ukranian farmland is going to be unusable for another few hundred years due to Soviet carelessness. You are in NO position to criticize other nations on that score. As for the financing of terrorists, most in the world agree that is largely coming from the Gulf States. You seem to still carry the same old ridiculous notions of the US from the cold war days' propaganda. It just isn't accurate, Sigma. As you have read on this thread, I am NOT at all happy with this notion that military might solves any problems(it generally makes them worse), and I can't stand the thought that we cannot, as a nation, learn that we have NO BUSINESS meddling in the Middle East under most circumstances. But the idea that the US, either the government or the people are filled with some grandiose dream of expansion and colonization, I think, is wrong. I would agree that many here view other nations in the world as somehow inferior, a view which is laughable from a nation with as many inherent problems as we have. Still, we do, as a people, value human rights, decency and to some extent fairness, qualities you either avoid or ignore.

CUDA wrote:So illegal use of chemical weapons and mass murder are acceptable ways of life in Russia.

Flabby Chick wrote:I agree with you, Sigma, it shouldn't be the United States who takes responsibility for stopping the chemical attacks on civilians. It should be all of us. This is our time to stop a Holocaust, a Rwanda or a Bosnia ect. Wherever such acts are committed, regardless of religion, race or simple business interests, they have to be stopped.

looks like the whole world already knows, except you that agents of the United States organized and financed coups, civil wars, terrorism, U.S. troops invaded in weakened countries and shed rivers of blood very many people for the sake of economic interests of the United States, primarily raw materials and political benefits. The bloodiest serial killer is innocent infant compared with the politicians in Washington. They are up to their elbows in the blood of entire peoples around 40 countries, including Russia in 1917.
And all this under the pretext of democracy and the protection of the interests of peaceful citizens of those countries who were raped by the United States. What can compare with this cynicism, I find it difficult to find a suitable example.

YA YA and Russia and the KGB are Lilly white.

sigma wrote:
looks like the whole world already knows, except you that agents of the United States organized and financed coups, civil wars, terrorism, U.S. troops invaded in weakened countries and shed rivers of blood very many people for the sake of economic interests of the United States, primarily raw materials and political benefits. The bloodiest serial killer is innocent infant compared with the politicians in Washington. They are up to their elbows in the blood of entire peoples around 40 countries, including Russia in 1917.
And all this under the pretext of democracy and the protection of the interests of peaceful citizens of those countries who were raped by the United States. What can compare with this cynicism, I find it difficult to find a suitable example.

perhaps you misread or didn't understand what FC said, but it was to suggest that the whole world should join in the outrage at Syria's use of chemical weapons and ALL weapons of mass destruction before we have a second holocaust. It was not an acknowledgment of your position on the US. Heaven knows the US has done a lot of wrongs in the name of economic dominance, and has done so over a 100 year period. And, to be sure, in many ways, those chickens have come home to roost for the US in the form of less cooperation, less willingness to accept US guidance and FAR more willingness to deal, economically with other nations. Some here will claim that this change in status is due to the current leadership, but it's been an ongoing thing for a couple of decades. You, however, seem to demonize the US far too strongly, with little regard for the positives we've brought, worldwide,and in terms of healthcare, food and other assistance, those are legion. To be frank, Sigma, as a Russian, you are in NO position to criticize, as from my perspective, Russia has subjugated others more ruthlessly, and brought few positives along the way.

I think it's imperative that the US take a secondary role in Syria. It must be the UN that takes first role in this, other wise, take Sigma for an example. It does not matter what the truth is, and most people won't take the whole of history into account. Only thing that matters is what people think and the here and now. It's all about controlling perspective, not dealing in facts. If the US were to take the initiative ourselves, we would almost certainly become utterly diplomatically isolated. Reminds me of Anatoliy Golitsyn. That guy had an uncanny ability to predict the future, and up till recently, we've played our part perfectly.

Soviet expansion:



nuff said...