Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
watson

go fuck yourself, syria

Recommended Posts

fuck you so much for being faggots

you had to use chemical weapons and get our attention

now we're going to have war with another stupid country

we're going to waste money and lose troops, FOR NOTHING

just as we're getting ready to "leave" afganistan [which will never really happen]

this shit has to happen. leave it to the fucking united nations to sort out

russia will hate us if we intervene, great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah..., I think you should check the news, mate.

 

Don't think you'll be going in any time soon and not sure the US would have lost any troops in there when all it was ever really going to be was a few cruise missiles and maybe a bunker buster or two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..... and you really think Russia ever stopped hating you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very excited to shoot missiles into syria aimed at targets that have been long stripped of anything worth shooting missiles at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i highly doubt we will only shoot missiles

if and when we do, we will have to put troops on the ground to thoroughly check for those chemical weapons used against civilians

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Watson - If I was able to I'd bet whatever you were willing to put up that that^^^^ is not the way it will/would have gone down.

 

I mean look at the assets they have deployed in the region right now - keeping in mind that they were basically planning to launch right about now if everything had gone to plan.

 

The have a bunch of Arleigh Burkes and more than likely an attack sub. These vessels carry guided missiles, not marines. There are no carriers deployed in range of the fighters prepped and ready to launch and there are no support assets (food, medical, fuel, etc.) setting up for a deployment.

 

Can't deploy troops when they or their logistics are not there to be deployed. Lastly, the White House was speaking and leaking very, very clearly about a punitive strike, which the assets in the region are configured for, not a decapitative strike or any kind of operation to take out/contain the chems Syria retains.

 

Mobilising and putting troops on the ground would take a deployment of tens of thousands of troops in terms of they guys on the ground and the logistics to support them and shit like that isn't something you can miss. It's simply not even being prepared for, let alone taking place right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"British parliament calling out war propaganda" ..., ah, no, that's not what they did at all.

 

"Imperialist war hawk faction", "Complicit corporate dinosaur mainstream media", "concerted Zionist agenda" well, that sounds like dispassionate, objective analysis!

 

Cites some document from a private org that talks about the Mid East dividing up in to ethnic states, as opposed to the artificial borders drawn up by European colonial powers and somehow that is a peace that supports Israeli purposes. Ah, yeah, certainly sounds like a kind of peace the Arabs of the Mid East would be pretty keen on as well. But this dude only seems to want to look at things from a Zionist conspiracy perspective.

 

Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline to Europe. Really? That's more of a threat to Russia than anyone else. Look in to Nabucco and South Stream, for a very clear and easy to understand example of Russian energy politics in Europe. Basically, Russia is the major energy supplier to Europe and uses this to leverage its foreign policy agenda there. If they are displaced by another provider Russia's national interests are massively undermined. So why would the US want to stop that and why would Russia support Syria in this conflict? That's against basic and very clear geopolitics.

 

The US would like to see Syria pulled from Iranian alignment because after the US fucked up in Iraq and handed it to Iran, there existed a Shiite crescent from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Of course Iran's competitors, US, KSA, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Etc., do not want to see Iran in such a controlling position, of course they are going to act to break Syria away from Iran. I don't think that's surprising or secret in anyway, it's basic geopolitics, the same way states, tribes and kingdoms have acted since time immemorial.

 

 

No Shia being forced on the Sunnis by Bashar and his father? WTF?! Hafez al Assad killed 10,000 Sunnis in Hama province using artillery and tanks only a few decades back, all on film, which no one in the world disputes!??! You've got to be kidding me, this is ridiculous and I'm not wasting my time with this anymore.

 

there are some really blatant and simple historical facts and current issues that these blokes are completely ignorant of and I find it very difficult to see this shit as even slightly credible.

 

McLovin, here's nothing wrong with alternative media at all and it's very, very healthy to be cynical and critical of the MSM. However make sure that you have a strong understanding of history and geopolitics (geography, economy, technology, demographics) yourself before you start forming strong opinions of very complex issues. If you don't have that foundation of your own it's difficult to have a well calibrated bullshit detector.

 

Remember, alternative media can and often is full of shit just as much as the mainstream media is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

McLovin, here's nothing wrong with alternative media at all and it's very, very healthy to be cynical and critical of the MSM. However make sure that you have a strong understanding of history and geopolitics (geography, economy, technology, demographics) yourself before you start forming strong opinions of very complex issues. If you don't have that foundation of your own it's difficult to have a well calibrated bullshit detector.

 

Remember, alternative media can and often is full of shit just as much as the mainstream media is.

 

 

Well then.. fuck it. I guess I'll just go back to playing my xbox then.. peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.img.jpg

 

ten years later, this time not even necessary to do the show at the un

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there hasn't actually been any military action yet. Y'all are acting like it's already occurred.

 

Actually, the Iraq debacle is probably as great an influence on this situation as Vietnam was from the 80s to the 2000s. That's why the UK parliament voted against a strike, that's why hardly any countries at all are backing a strike and that's why Obama is taking this to Congress than going ahead himself.

 

I'm pretty confident in saying that unless there is a major shift, such as another large scale chem attack (or credible accusation of) or similar, there will be no US led military attack on Syria.

 

Look how badly everyone is backing off now. There is no coalition of the willing, the UK has basically ruled out participating and Obama is throwing it to Congress so he can delay and diffuse his responsibility. If it was going to happen it would have taken place already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all: in general, what responsibility does the US have to take action in the event of humanitarian disasters?

 

/crossfire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one that really matters^^^

 

Obama drew the red line and is now backed in to a corner. He'd much prefer to GTFO of the Mid East right now and shift to the Indo-Pacific but if he doesn't back his words with action then US words/threats mean very little and the US loses some ability to shape the actions of other nations.

 

That's pretty much what it's all about here, clearly the chem weapons attack means very little, it's just the line that they chose to draw. It's the line that actually matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW STATEMENT

Syria Statement

 

Assuming the U.S. Congress authorises them, Washington (together with some allies) soon will launch military strikes against Syrian regime targets. If so, it will have taken such action for reasons largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people. The administration has cited the need to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons - a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict without this prompting much collective action in their defence. The administration also refers to the need, given President Obama's asserted "redline" against use of chemical weapons, to protect Washington's credibility - again an understandable objective though unlikely to resonate much with Syrians. Quite apart from talk of outrage, deterrence and restoring U.S. credibility, the priority must be the welfare of the Syrian people. Whether or not military strikes are ordered, this only can be achieved through imposition of a sustained ceasefire and widely accepted political transition.

 

To precisely gauge in advance the impact of a U.S. military attack, regardless of its scope and of efforts to carefully calibrate it, by definition is a fool's errand. In a conflict that has settled into a deadly if familiar pattern - and in a region close to boiling point - it inevitably will introduce a powerful element of uncertainty. Consequences almost certainly will be unpredictable. Still, several observations can be made about what it might and might not do:

 

A military attack will not, nor can it, be met with even minimal international consensus; in this sense, the attempt to come up with solid evidence of regime use of chemical weapons, however necessary, also is futile. Given the false pretenses that informed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and, since then, regional and international polarisation coupled with the dynamics of the Syrian conflict itself, proof put forward by the U.S. will be insufficient to sway disbelievers and skepticism will be widespread.

 

It might discourage future use of chemical weapons by signaling even harsher punishment in the event of recidivism - an important achievement in and of itself. Should the regime find itself fighting for its survival, however, that consideration might not weigh heavily. Elements within the opposition also might be tempted to use such weapons and then blame the regime, precisely in order to provoke further U.S. intervention.

 

It could trigger violent escalation within Syria as the regime might exact revenge on rebels and rebel-held areas, while the opposition seeks to seize the opportunity to make its own gains.

 

Major regional or international escalation (such as retaliatory actions by the regime, Iran or Hizbollah, notably against Israel) is possible but probably not likely given the risks involved, though this could depend on the scope of the strikes.

 

Military action, which the U.S. has stated will not aim at provoking the regime's collapse, might not even have an enduring effect on the balance of power on the ground. Indeed, the regime could register a propaganda victory, claiming it had stood fast against the U.S. and rallying domestic and regional opinion around an anti-Western, anti-imperialist mantra.

 

Ultimately, the principal question regarding a possible military strike is whether diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict can be reenergized in its aftermath. Smart money says they will not: in the wake of an attack they condemn as illegal and illegitimate, the regime and its allies arguably will not be in a mood to negotiate with the U.S. Carefully calibrating the strike to hurt enough to change their calculations but not enough to prompt retaliation or impede diplomacy is appealing in theory. In practice, it almost certainly is not feasible.

 

Whether or not the U.S. chooses to launch a military offensive, its responsibility should be to try to optimize chances of a diplomatic breakthrough. This requires a two-fold effort lacking to date: developing a realistic compromise political offer as well as genuinely reaching out to both Russia and Iran in a manner capable of eliciting their interest - rather than investing in a prolonged conflict that has a seemingly bottomless capacity to escalate.

 

In this spirit, the U.S. should present - and Syria's allies should seriously and constructively consider - a proposal based on the following elements:

 

It is imperative to end this war. The escalation, regional instability and international entanglement its persistence unavoidably stimulates serve nobody's interest.

The only exit is political. That requires far-reaching concessions and a lowering of demands from all parties. The sole viable outcome is a compromise that protects the interests of all Syrian constituencies and reflects rather than alters the regional strategic balance;

The Syrian crisis presents an important opportunity to test whether the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran can work together on regional issues to restore stability;

A viable political outcome in Syria cannot be one in which the current leadership remains indefinitely in power but, beyond that, the U.S. can be flexible with regards to timing and specific modalities;

The U.S. is keen to avoid collapse of the Syrian state and the resulting political vacuum. The goal should thus be a transition that builds on existing institutions rather than replaces them. This is true notably with respect to the army;

Priority must be given to ensuring that no component of Syrian society is targeted for retaliation, discrimination or marginalisation in the context of a negotiated settlement.

 

Such a proposal should then form the basis for renewed efforts by Lakhdar Brahimi, the joint United Nations/Arab League envoy, and lead to rapid convening of a Geneva II conference.

 

Debate over a possible strike - its wisdom, preferred scope and legitimacy in the absence of UN Security Council approval - has obscured and distracted from what ought to be the overriding international preoccupation: how to revitalise the search for a political settlement. Discussions about its legality aside, any contemplated military action should be judged based on whether it advances that goal or further postpones it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty confident in saying that unless there is a major shift, such as another large scale chem attack (or credible accusation of) or similar, there will be no US led military attack on Syria.

.

 

Not so confident anymore. Thought there'd be greater resistance in the Senate and Congress than there currently is.

 

There's a pretty persuasive argument regarding US power, ultimatums, China, Russia, Iran, DPRK, etc. Basically what I was saying above and it seems to be gaining decent traction in Washington by the looks of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×