Dennis Kucinich accuses Obama of 'rushing' towards World War 3
http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/29/k ... rld-war-3/ (http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/29/kucinich-accuses-obama-of-rushing-towards-world-war-3/)
QuoteA 'targeted strike' on Syria by the US would be nothing but an act of war, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, adding that an airstrike on President Assad's anti-radical Islamist forces would mean the US Air Force was supporting Al-Qaeda.
Kucinich, a prominent anti-war politician who has consistently opposed America's military involvement in Iraq and Libya, warned that President Barack Obama would be violating the US Constitution if he took military action against Syria without authorization from Congress.
An airstrike on Syria would also embolden multinational jihadists with links to Al-Qaeda, warned Kucinich, a four-time Congressman who was a longshot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and 2008. For the US, that would mean being dragged into yet another war in the Middle East, he said.
Quote"So what, we're about to become Al-Qaeda's air force now?" said Kucinich. "This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not something to be trifled with."
Kucinich, who stood down in January after losing the Democratic nomination for his seat in the House of Representatives, said he doubted the allegations that President Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.
"This is being used as a pretext," he said. "The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?" said Kucinich, adding that the Obama administration was "rushing" toward a possible"World War 3."
I was really rooting for him to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination all those years ago. *sigh*
Our government has reached the point where they consider dropping a few bombs a friendly warning.
If America learned anything from the problems they've had, they'll let the UN do their job.
I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.
Yeah, I thought that was a bit of hyperbole, but he's right when he says this is nothing to trifle with. How many Middle Eastern countries are we going to piss off now?
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Dennis Kucinich accuses Obama of 'rushing' towards World War 3
http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/29/k ... rld-war-3/ (http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/29/kucinich-accuses-obama-of-rushing-towards-world-war-3/)
QuoteA 'targeted strike' on Syria by the US would be nothing but an act of war, former Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, adding that an airstrike on President Assad's anti-radical Islamist forces would mean the US Air Force was supporting Al-Qaeda.
Kucinich, a prominent anti-war politician who has consistently opposed America's military involvement in Iraq and Libya, warned that President Barack Obama would be violating the US Constitution if he took military action against Syria without authorization from Congress.
An airstrike on Syria would also embolden multinational jihadists with links to Al-Qaeda, warned Kucinich, a four-time Congressman who was a longshot contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 and 2008. For the US, that would mean being dragged into yet another war in the Middle East, he said.
Quote"So what, we're about to become Al-Qaeda's air force now?" said Kucinich. "This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not something to be trifled with."
Kucinich, who stood down in January after losing the Democratic nomination for his seat in the House of Representatives, said he doubted the allegations that President Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people.
"This is being used as a pretext," he said. "The verdict is in before the facts have been gathered. What does that tell you?" said Kucinich, adding that the Obama administration was "rushing" toward a possible"World War 3."
I was really rooting for him to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination all those years ago. *sigh*
The "mainstream" made him out to be a kook back in the day like the left's version of Ron Paul. They "otherize" folks that don't tow the line whether they're on the left or right. It seems you can't be taken seriously if you publically admit that you think the US should stop bombing people and take care of its own business. That's just crazy talk.
WW1 was started by an assassination. WW3 might very well be started by a "targeted strike".
Quote from: "The Whit"WW1 was started by an assassination. WW3 might very well be started by a "targeted strike".
It is possible. I think it would take a serious of terrible events to culminate into something like that, but if history has shown us anything, a small act could lead to a big war.
Especially considering who is at the helm of Russia and Iran on top of the ignoramuses in our government.
I initially laughed off the idea of WWIII. see my other post in the other thread on this.
the more I think about it the less crazy it sounds.
we hit Syria. Syria and/or Iran take revenge by hitting israel, who then responds with great force. which in turn causes Iran and Syria to respond in kind. Plus they ask for Russia and China their allies to help. Israel asks for our help.
nobody plans for WWIII it just happens from a chain reaction.
Russia is already sending their own navy down there.
Obama is playing with fire.
how Ironic it will be if Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner is the spark that causes the worst war the earth has ever known. one we might not make it out of alive.
Obama will not call it a war, just like Afghanistan and Iraq weren't wars. They were called police actions or operations. If we invaded Syria it would be yet another undeclared war. And since it's not technically a war, Congressional approval is not required. The President as Commander-in-chief retains the right to launch small scale campaigns without the need of congressional approval, and this power has been continuously increased behind the scenes for years if not decades.
If we invade Syria and another major power gets involved, like Iran or China or Russia, it will be a war, albeit not officially, not when it begins anyway.
Let's just hope we stay out of it, otherwise....the implications are not good.
Corporate wars do not care about lives or even civilization. As long they are the ones ruling the new Dark Era they could care less. Doesn't matter how low we are, as long as they are just one notch above the rest of us it doesn't matter.
the house of commons in britain just blocked their being in this war.
and Obama? he's ready to go it alone, despite the UN and no allies.
because of our national security. WHAT? how are we threatened?
Obama is doing exactly what he condemned bush for. he is turning into Bushes Mini-me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 38922.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/obama-syria-strike_n_3838922.html)
This could very well lead to WWIII. Nixon took us off the gold standard and then coerced oil exporting countries to only use US dollars for trade. With the inflation the Fed uses for their own purposes the oil exporting countries are getting tired of dealing in dollars. Iraq was going to go to Euros, but then something happened. Then Libya was making noises about going to the Euro in selling oil, then something happened. Something might happen to Syria or Iran as well. To make sure the inflated Federal Reserve Notes are still being used.
Syria is allied with Iran who is allied with Russia. China is beginning to get pissed in having dollars they can't use. To keep the owners of the Fed happy, Obama may just go ahead and start a war. And if it turns into WWIII and billions die, that's okay. The owners of the Fed have their bunkers ready. As long as they don't loose their financial control, all's good.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
It's been a long time since I've agreed with anything Kucinich has said, but bless his heart, he's speaking truth on this. There's shenanigans and bullshit being called on this.
Quote from: "billhilly"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"I was really rooting for him to win the Democratic Presidential Nomination all those years ago. *sigh*
The "mainstream" made him out to be a kook back in the day like the left's version of Ron Paul. They "otherize" folks that don't tow the line whether they're on the left or right. It seems you can't be taken seriously if you publically admit that you think the US should stop bombing people and take care of its own business. That's just crazy talk.
While he's indeed brilliant, he is small of stature and has a somewhat weak voice. He's a throwback to bygone days when politicians were often actual statesmen. He tends to relate to reality, rather than public fantasy, and he's not very good at talking bullshit. In short, he's not presidential material.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"how Ironic it will be if Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner is the spark that causes the worst war the earth has ever known. one we might not make it out of alive.
I'm actually embarrassed about him getting a Nobel Prize. I was enamored with him so much at the beginning of his presidency that him getting the Peace Prize struck me as a good choice. I realized that he had no track record in regards to either war mongering or peace, but I loved him and thought he deserved it.
In retrospect, I have wondered why the committee selected him for the prize at all. I think it was because the country had just survived 8 years of wild eyed neocon control, with a dim witted Murkin living in the White House that had absolutely no swagger until he had the opportunity to monger a war.
Basically, Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for not being George Bush, which when you think about it, is rather dubious ground for awarding anything to somebody. But like everyone else, I wanted there to be a "change you could believe in". God damn! I was such a sucker.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the house of commons in britain just blocked their being in this war.
Yeah, I was just reading about that this morning.
Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-2 ... WEET872473 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783#TWEET872473)
QuoteDavid Cameron said he would respect the defeat of a government motion by 285-272, ruling out joining US-led strikes.
The US said it would "continue to consult" with the UK, "one of our closest allies and friends".
France said the UK's vote does not change its resolve on the need to act in Syria.
Russia - which has close ties with the Assad government - welcomed Britain's rejection of a military strike.
The prime minister's call for a military response in Syria followed a suspected chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of the capital Damascus on 21 August, in which hundreds of people are reported to have died.
The US and UK say the Assad government was behind the attack - a claim denied by Damascus, which blames the rebels.
Assad said Syria would defend itself against any aggression.
QuoteDefence Secretary Philip Hammond had told BBC's Newsnight programme that he and the prime minister were "disappointed" with the result, saying it would harm Britain's "special relationship" with Washington.
But he said he did not expect Britain's decision to "stop any action" by other countries.
Labour leader Ed Miliband said on Friday that the House of Commons had spoken "for the people of Britain".
"People are deeply concerned about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but they want us to learn the lessons of Iraq," he said.
"They don't want a rush to war. They want things done in the right way, working with the international community."
He said Britain "doesn't need reckless and impulsive leadership, it needs calm and measured leadership".
Cameron regrets vote, France says strike still on
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/2736891/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/30/syria-britain-france-russia-united-nations/2736891/)
QuotePrime Minister David Cameron said on Friday he regretted the failure of the British parliament to support military action in Syria though he still felt Britain should have done something to prevent further slaughter in Syria.
"I think the American public, the American people and President Obama will understand," Cameron said.
"I haven't spoken to him (Obama) since the debate and the vote but I would expect to speak to him over the next day or so. I don't think it's a question of having to apologize," Cameron said in an interview aired on British television channels.
Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande said his country could go ahead with a strike on Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.
"The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished," Hollande said in an interview with the newspaper Le Monde, published on Friday and reported by CBS News.
QuoteThe votes came on a day that the Obama administration postponed disclosure of the intelligence that led it to conclude the regime of Bashar Assad was to blame for the Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in a region north of Damascus. The British government released its intelligence findings Thursday.
The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.
"The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
I have a sinking feeling that we're going to end up in fucking Syria soon. :( But, at least this time around most Americans are pretty put off by the idea.
Poll: Americans want Obama to get Congress OK on Syria
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2 ... e/2736855/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/08/30/americans-obama-congress-approval-syria-strike/2736855/)
QuoteNearly 80% of Americans think President Obama should seek Congressional approval before taking any military action in Syria, according to a NBC News poll published on Friday.
Seventy-nine percent of respondents say they want the president to go to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The tough poll numbers for the White House come one day after members of Obama's national security team provided 26 lawmakers with an unclassified briefing to detail some of the intelligence that they say shows regime loyalists linked to Syria President Bashar Assad was responsible for an Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus that left hundreds dead.
Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?
deleted...I can't figure out how to post pictures
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.
Yeah, I thought that was a bit of hyperbole, but he's right when he says this is nothing to trifle with. How many Middle Eastern countries are we going to piss off now?
Im not quite sure about that. This could grow to include quite a few countries, ranging from the US to Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even China might get involved. If thats not a World War, its fairly close to one.
Obama ready to strike in Syria
Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No
Aug. 29th, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/po ... c=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)
QuotePresident Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said Thursday, despite a stinging rejection of such action by America's stalwart ally Britain and mounting questions from Congress.
QuoteBut administration officials made clear that the eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead with a strike. Pentagon officials said that the Navy had now moved a fifth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Each ship carries dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles that would probably be the centerpiece of any attack on Syria.
Even before the parliamentary vote, White House officials said, Mr. Obama decided there was no way he could overcome objections by Russia, Syria's longtime backer, to any resolution in the Security Council.
Although administration officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that a strike could occur soon after United Nations investigators charged with scrutinizing the Aug. 21 attack leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus on Saturday.
QuoteThe White House presented its case for military action to Congressional leaders on Thursday evening, trying to head off growing pressure from Democrats and Republicans to provide more information about the administration's military planning and seek Congressional approval for any action.
In a conference call with Republicans and Democrats, top officials from the State Department, the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence agencies asserted that the evidence was clear that Mr. Assad's forces had carried out the attack, according to officials who were briefed.
While the intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack, these officials said, the administration said the United States had both the evidence and legal justification to carry out a strike aimed at deterring the Syrian leader from using such weapons again.
QuoteMr. Engel said that among the evidence described to members of Congress was an intercepted communication "from a high-level Syrian official" discussing the attack. "There is more than enough evidence if the president chooses to act," Mr. Engel said.
After the 90-minute conference call, some senior lawmakers were not persuaded that the Obama administration had made its case for military action in Syria. Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Obama needed to make a forceful case to persuade both Congress and a "war weary" country.
"If he doesn't, I think he could have a real problem with the Congress and the American public," he said. "He's got a big sell."
QuoteMr. Obama's rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in Iraq without seeking an authorizing resolution in the United Nations. The Obama administration says that case differs sharply from its objectives in Syria.
In Iraq Mr. Bush was explicitly seeking regime change. In this case, White House officials argue, Mr. Obama is trying to enforce an international ban on chemical weapons and seeking to prevent their use in Syria, or against American allies.
"We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "The problem is that the Russians won't vote for any accountability."
The decision to proceed without Britain is remarkable, however. Even in the Iraq war, Mr. Bush relied on what he called a "coalition of the willing," led by Britain. Mr. Obama has made clear that this initiative would come from the United States, and that while he welcomed international participation, he was not depending on foreign forces for what would essentially be an operation conducted largely by the United States, from naval vessels off the Syrian coast.
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"Our government has reached the point where they consider dropping a few bombs a friendly warning.
Fuckkkkkkkkk. THIS x 100000.
Everyone's talking about the global ramifications like they are the only reason why you shouldn't bomb people you've never had any contact with on the other side of the world.
Either help properly, or do nothing and accept that you are doing nothing. Don't just fire missiles at it and hope it goes away.
It's all about war. You can't really bomb ANYONE and say, 'It's not an act of war.'
I'm split on this to be honest. I'm not anti war nor pro war. If the have a compelling reason in our best interest then go to war, but if it's to make money for the zikzak corporation then stay the fuck out.
On the other hand there were long standing chemical weapons bans set in place for very legitimate reasons.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"The president would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own, without an international coalition, a spokesman said following the vote in London.
Fucking lol at that choice of words.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the house of commons in britain just blocked their being in this war.
and Obama? he's ready to go it alone, despite the UN and no allies.
because of our national security. WHAT? how are we threatened?
Obama is doing exactly what he condemned bush for. he is turning into Bushes Mini-me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/2 ... 38922.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/obama-syria-strike_n_3838922.html)
Don't forget France!
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?
Nope.
No evidence what-so-ever except anecdote and "Well, Assad has the capablity, it must have been him".
Whilst that might be true, nobody is saying "Wait...isn't the coaliation (The Free Syrian Army) fighting against Assad mainly run by Islamist extremists who are being funded and armed by other extremists that operate outside of Syria in the hope of extending a vision of Caliphate?"
The secular Syrian voice, a voice I would have supported 100%, died off long ago. It was shelled to death by the regime, and any who survived were beheaded by their 'allies' in the rebel factions.
Good for Kucinich. He's right on the money.
I wrote a blog entry about WWIII last summer, it looks like the only thing I was wrong about was which part of the Syria-Iran alliance would be the target. Of course supporting the Syrian rebels does weaken the Syria-Iran alliance.
Worst Case War Scenario (//http://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2012/08/worst-case-war-scenario.html)
The least probable part of that blog entry is what India might do.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I initially laughed off the idea of WWIII. see my other post in the other thread on this.
the more I think about it the less crazy it sounds.
we hit Syria. Syria and/or Iran take revenge by hitting israel, who then responds with great force. which in turn causes Iran and Syria to respond in kind. Plus they ask for Russia and China their allies to help. Israel asks for our help.
nobody plans for WWIII it just happens from a chain reaction.
Russia is already sending their own navy down there.
Obama is playing with fire.
http://world.time.com/2013/08/28/irania ... ia-attack/ (http://world.time.com/2013/08/28/iranian-officials-israel-will-be-first-victim-of-a-syria-attack/)
So basically what we're saying is, "we don't care who did it, we're going to attack the Syrian government". Sounds like using 9-11 as the reason to attack Iraq. (Aside from being totally stupid - we're attacking the government that's keeping an enemy of ours tied up?)
I'm SO disappointed by Obama.
Quote from: "Colanth"So basically what we're saying is, "we don't care who did it, we're going to attack the Syrian government". Sounds like using 9-11 as the reason to attack Iraq. (Aside from being totally stupid - we're attacking the government that's keeping an enemy of ours tied up?)
I'm SO disappointed by Obama.
I've been disappointed with him for 5 years now, so this one isn't shocking me too much.
I can't say I'm disappointed because to do so would imply that I expected him to do anything right in the first place, and I didn't.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?
Nope.
No evidence what-so-ever except anecdote and "Well, Assad has the capablity, it must have been him".
Whilst that might be true, nobody is saying "Wait...isn't the coaliation (The Free Syrian Army) fighting against Assad mainly run by Islamist extremists who are being funded and armed by other extremists that operate outside of Syria in the hope of extending a vision of Caliphate?"
The secular Syrian voice, a voice I would have supported 100%, died off long ago. It was shelled to death by the regime, and any who survived were beheaded by their 'allies' in the rebel factions.
I know, right?!?! A bunch of UN chemical weapons inspectors just happen to be there when a shit ton of chemical weapons are used? Are we really thinking that Assad and/or his military would be so stupid? Maybe they are, but that's pretty fucking shocking. Who gains from this? The rebels. I'm still trying to figure out what Assad would have gained from gassing civilians. Striking fear into people, I guess? Did he even need that?
Either Assad or someone in his military is the biggest moron EVER, or someone else was setting off those weapons in an attempt to start some serious shit. Whichever it may be, I wish Obama would back the fuck off and let the UN handle it instead of trying to go in there guns blazing. :roll:
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't think this is even remotely close to WW3, but otherwise I agree with him on it that it is both illegal and stupid.
Yeah, I thought that was a bit of hyperbole, but he's right when he says this is nothing to trifle with. How many Middle Eastern countries are we going to piss off now?
Im not quite sure about that. This could grow to include quite a few countries, ranging from the US to Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even China might get involved. If thats not a World War, its fairly close to one.
At least some people had the decency to resign when Yasser Arafat won his nobel prize claiming it had become a farce.
The only ones you piss off will be the shia Islam which is Iran and the Hassan Nasrallah led shia from Lebanon who are already fighting with Assad, these guys are considered deviant heretics by the sunni side of Islam who the USA is aligned with.
The Saudis,Qatar,Turkey are all with the sunni rebels against the shia-alawite Assad, this lot are probably not very happy with China and Russia.
The Saudis hate Iran,wikileaks showed they were prepared to let Israel fly over them to bomb Iran,they could take care of their shia enemy and blame it on the jews.
A good chart in this article, it has a few missing lines that i can see yet you should get the idea.
//http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/
IMO stay the fuck out and dont even waste Raytheon stock on these guys,What did Reagan do when Assad's father was whacking 20,000+ members of the Muslim brotherhood around 30 years ago?
There has never been any unity in Islam since the battle of the Camel around 1400 years ago,i think it is better to have some shia so they can always fight with the sunni instead of hassling the infidels.
We cannot stop these sectarian battles between rival sects of Islam, they will only stop when muslims realise Islam is bullshit.
Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "Smartmarzipan"Has any evidence that Assad did this to his own people been released, yet? Or are they just saying they have proof, like Bush/Cheney did with Iraq?
Nope.
No evidence what-so-ever except anecdote and "Well, Assad has the capablity, it must have been him".
Whilst that might be true, nobody is saying "Wait...isn't the coaliation (The Free Syrian Army) fighting against Assad mainly run by Islamist extremists who are being funded and armed by other extremists that operate outside of Syria in the hope of extending a vision of Caliphate?"
The secular Syrian voice, a voice I would have supported 100%, died off long ago. It was shelled to death by the regime, and any who survived were beheaded by their 'allies' in the rebel factions.
I know, right?!?! A bunch of UN chemical weapons inspectors just happen to be there when a shit ton of chemical weapons are used? Are we really thinking that Assad and/or his military would be so stupid? Maybe they are, but that's pretty fucking shocking. Who gains from this? The rebels. I'm still trying to figure out what Assad would have gained from gassing civilians. Striking fear into people, I guess? Did he even need that?
Either Assad or someone in his military is the biggest moron EVER, or someone else was setting off those weapons in an attempt to start some serious shit. Whichever it may be, I wish Obama would back the fuck off and let the UN handle it instead of trying to go in there guns blazing. :roll:
Just playing devil's advocate, but it could actually be a calculated move from Assad. Think about it: having the UN chemical weapon inspectors right there could be in fact the best moment to use those weapons on your people and then proclaim that it's the rebels trying to set you up because, you know, you wouldn't be so stupid to use gas while the inspectors are there. I'm not saying that that's what happened, but I think it's a possibility. Assad is a shrew, merciless dictator.
That said, a victory of the rebels would probably be an even worse scenario. Right now, the rebel factions are controlled by Muslim fundamentalists who would turn Syria into another religious shithole and create even more problems in the area.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"First of all the 'phrase' 'World War III' is a joke used to rise the usual 5 seconds attention span of an avarage American or a European
It's obvious hyperbole designed to rile up the emotions of the audience. It's surprisingly effective and taken seriously more often than it should.
QuoteOfficially war has never been declared in cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, so it's not a war?
The U.S. hasn't officially declared war since WWII. Afghanistan, Iraq and a host of others are considered undeclared wars. And while obviously, what we call it makes little difference to the people being attacked, I think it should be clearly understood that there's a pretty big difference between a series of airstrikes and a full-fledged war of the sort where both sides have boots on the ground. For example, U.S. military intervention in Libya compared to Iraq.
People tend to think of war as massive battles and invasions, so using the term is technically correct but somewhat misleading, but only because people are idiots.
Regardless of what we end up doing or not doing, I'm afraid that the result is going to be the same, as far as we're concerned - a nation in the Middle East that hates the US. The very best we can do in Syria is lose with not too many lives (on any side) lost.
The last war the US declared was Korea. That war was never technically ended, so we're still at war with North Korea.
North Korea was officially a police action of the UN. The US merely provided soldiers and equipment in support of the UNSC resolution, and Congress approved the funding. Truman never requested a declaration of war, and therefore Congress never declared war on North Korea.
Quote from: "The Whit"The last war the US declared was Korea. That war was never technically ended, so we're still at war with North Korea.
No and no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... ons_of_war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Declarations_of_war)
Wrap a great big lie around a grain of truth and you get wars that destroy lives and the scale seems unimportant, but makes for political theater that news organizations and movie makers gobble up to entertain the masses. Trouble is government is all to good at controlling the story line and images so the news and movie makers only portray 'the bad guys' dying leaving intact all the civillian neighborhoods and a handful of 'hero's' get 'flesh wounds' and go home hero's welcome. Isn't this what they refer to as 'hiSTORY'? We're feed a story and feel good about killing 'bad guys' like Nazi's, Japs, Indians and so on and on and on. One great big lie wrapped around a grain of truth..
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I initially laughed off the idea of WWIII. see my other post in the other thread on this.
the more I think about it the less crazy it sounds.
we hit Syria. Syria and/or Iran take revenge by hitting israel, who then responds with great force. which in turn causes Iran and Syria to respond in kind. Plus they ask for Russia and China their allies to help. Israel asks for our help.
nobody plans for WWIII it just happens from a chain reaction.
Russia is already sending their own navy down there.
Obama is playing with fire.
Russia will never participate in war on Syrian side. Here are huge amount of people who hate US, but most of them also are racists. They hate muslims too. They can not decide who do they hate more, muslims or americans. They say "we want they to kill each other". Why I am talking about that kind of people? Because other russians will not support a war of any kind.
Moreover, war in Syria is good for Russia economicaly. War will increase oil prises and therefore will increase money income for Russia. Now, there is not enough money in Russian budget. If war in Syria did not start, Russia would face an economic crisis.
There is civil war in Syria. Bloody dictator figths against radical islamists. Why does US need to intervene in there?
I'm not currently pro war nor anti war as the implications here can go in several directions at once, but the truth is I don't have privy to the 'classified' reports on Syria nor the long range reasons for war from our side. Without that information I cannot make an informed decision, but must rely on what little information our governments hand out.
If I say no and nothing happens from our government does this war drag on and on eventually dragging millions more in? If I agree with war do we have a repeat of Iraq with hundreds of thousands more needlessly slaughtered?
I have no choice but to be an outside observer from afar and the only real information I'm given is whatever my government says.
What if it's for reasons none of us know about, but can indeed shorten a war?
We're not given sufficient information to base rational decisions on so we're left either trusting or mistrusting leaders who for the largest part have given us little or no reason to believe them. Yet, even though I don't believe them there is a big part of me that wants to believe it's all for the right reasons which when you boil it down seems suspiciously like religion.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Yet, even though I don't believe them there is a big part of me that wants to believe it's all for the right reasons which when you boil it down seems suspiciously like religion.
Except when a nation is defending itself from invasion, the reasons for wars are never "for the right reasons" -- or at least never for the reasons their governments claim. Even though the world may emerge from the carnage of a war and make progress in human rights, political stability, etc., the reasons for waging wars are always much less noble than stated.
It's an old trick governments have been using on their populations for thousands of years. The Romans wanted to eliminate trade competition, but told their people they fought Carthage because they were barbaric people who angered the gods by practicing child sacrifice. The war did bring about the end of the horrific practice of child sacrifice in that part of the world. It also happened to make rich Romans richer and was the real motivation for the war.
When I served in the US military, I suffered no illusion that any good resulting from military involvements was a side-effect rather than an intent. Even so, there were a hell of a lot of side effects. Who would rather have lived under the East German government than the West German government, or North Korea's than South Korea's?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This is why any kind of attack launch against US and all its fucking lapdogs from EU to Israil, Turkiye to Canada, from France to fuck or to that by any of those countries is perfectly justifie, actually legitimate at this point.
(//http://i.imgur.com/dnLvR4w.gif)
Dear Miss Shoe,
Your frustration is well founded and duly noted, however we're not in decision positions and our respective governments rarely, if ever listen to us unless we happen to have several billion dollars and run a successful arms dealership.
I'm neither pro nor anti war here as my thoughts on the matter matter not one iota as to what may happen now or anytime in the future. I can write letters, but it along with another million or so will go unanswered and go ignored.
I happen to agree with you that war is folly, but at the same time does the world continue to sit idle and do nothing while thousands are slaughtered and millions are displaced in hopes that Syria resolves its differences without outside interference and if so how long does the rest of the world watch on?
I have no clue which side, if any is even worth even the pretense of support and the information we're given is sketchy at best.
Can war stop more war? It sounds good from the surface, but we both know that war is a huge money maker for those waging it for any reason so where does that leave us as citizens? We're to suppose our governments are in it for humanitarian reasons which we know is the lamest excuse imaginable? I too have my serious doubts, but if I were victim of the Assad regime I might feel entirely different begging a powerful nation to intervene. I'm not so the most I can do is to watch, wait and hope the right decisions are made for the right reasons knowing that is most likely not the case.
If you have a better idea I'd like to hear it, but as of now people are being killed one after another with little to no help from anyone and the irony is that the very people we propose to back are also our "sworn enemies" or at least a large portion are.
Is staying out an option? That accomplishes exactly what?
I'm at a loss as to what to think in this case. I really am.
Quote from: "DigitalBot"There is civil war in Syria. Bloody dictator figths against radical islamists. Why does US need to intervene in there?
Because there's no better way for us to totally screw up right now. And that's our Middle East policy - screw up as much as possible. (It's worked for many decades so far.)
What I am wondering, is why now, right now, is everyone playing the political "we are awoken" card. Controversial wars have been waged, including most recently in Libya, and not many people complained. Electronic devices have been logging our activity for years and years, and then all of a sudden when Snowden did his thing everybody felt offended that their electronic activity was being logged. The examples could spread on.
I am not disputing that what has happened recently is not corrupt. But I wonder why all of a sudden the buck will stop with Assad, who has shown that he is not the polished statesman he once claimed to be. In fact he is the exact opposite. Why, after everything that has happened, should Assad be the one to get a free ride?
Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria. Kucinich is taking the right approach. I just don't see why just because a man wears a suit and tie, has a British wife and acts Western he can get away with everything he has done.
Quote from: "frosty"I just don't see why just because a man wears a suit and tie, has a British wife and acts Western he can get away with everything he has done.
Maybe it's because unlike Iraq and Libya, Syria is rapidly running out of oil. Our "humanitarian" use of the military (how does one do that by the way?) does not extend to places without significant oil reserves, such as Rwanda or places we can get the oil by paying off the local juntas, such as Myanmar.
Quote from: "frosty"Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.
A political transition to what the people of Syria want? Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?
Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners? Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path? (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.) Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "frosty"Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.
A political transition to what the people of Syria want? Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?
Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners? Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path? (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.) Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?
Everybody is allowed to have their opinion, despite being pro this, or anti that, or neutral. I already explained why I think transition is the best option... I think a political transition is the best thing, so state institutions stay intact and the country does not completely collapse. Syria needs a functioning central state so different groups don't start killing each other more than they already are right now.
That being said, the major powers agreed on the transition plan, even Russia. Yes, Russia. That's the purpose of the Geneva 2 conference, to implement the plan of Geneva 1. Assad's regime has played around with Geneva for a while, sometimes hinting they will go, and other times flatly denying they will ever attend. So it's hard to tell what the fudge is going on.
I would also flip the tables and suggest the other side of the argument. Why should Syrians have to settle with a family dynasty ruling over them? There are many sides of this issue. Of course tribalism is an issue which is why Assad has lost control over vast swathes of Syria. He tried to crush the tribes and they fought back.
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "frosty"Once again, I don't support intervention, but I do support a political transition in Syria.
A political transition to what the people of Syria want? Or a political transition to what WE consider they SHOULD want?
Why should they be forced into a western-style democracy, when they're not westerners? Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose their own path? (Which, in the case of most of the Middle East, is tribalism.) Where do we get off "paternalistically" imposing our way of life on them?
Everybody is allowed to have their opinion, despite being pro this, or anti that, or neutral. I already explained why I think transition is the best option... I think a political transition is the best thing, so state institutions stay intact and the country does not completely collapse.
So if the Syrians want the country to collapse, and state institutions to end, ??? We force something else on them?
QuoteSyria needs a functioning central state
Why does a tribal society need a State?
Quoteso different groups don't start killing each other more than they already are right now.
So if that's what they want - a tribal society in which they kill each other, you'd impose something else on them.
QuoteThat being said, the major powers agreed on the transition plan, even Russia.
I notice that you don't include Syrians in that list. So, as I said, we're being paternalistic - forcing our decision on them.
QuoteThat's the purpose of the Geneva 2 conference, to implement the plan of Geneva 1.
With or without the consent of the people it's being imposed on.
QuoteI would also flip the tables and suggest the other side of the argument. Why should Syrians have to settle with a family dynasty ruling over them?
Because that's the system WE imposed on them?
QuoteOf course tribalism is an issue which is why Assad has lost control over vast swathes of Syria. He tried to crush the tribes and they fought back.
You got that one backwards. We imposed statism on a tribal society, and it's not working. It hasn't worked since the end of the Ottoman Empire (which is when we started imposing it). Now our solution is to enforce statism even more? Yes, of course. If we do something and it fails, let's do more of it in the hope that if we do it often enough it'll work.
Sure, always interested in hearing your own subjective opinion on the war. That's cool. At the end of the day we just have to watch what happens, all I suggested was a settled solution to the conflict. There are many different opinions on how to end this but hopefully one day it really does end.
Quote from: "frosty"all I suggested was a settled solution to the conflict.
Settled how? The people involved ARE settling it now - THEIR way. What you suggested was an IMPOSED solution, they'll live the way we tell them to. Regardless of your calling it "settled", it's still imposed from without, unless you're suggesting that we just stay out of it and let them "settle" it.
This is going nowhere though. I've already said everything I've had to say. You've already given me your own subjective opinion on what's going on, according to your own subjective perspective. I've done the same. Nothing will be further accomplished by typing IN CAPS and multi quoting posts just to get an upper hand over each other, like I said we are only observers that at the end of the day have no real power to influence anything.