Thread: The crisis in Syria

"'...America and war….
It’s the old American double standard, you know, say one thing, do something different. And, of course, the country is founded on the double standard. That’s our history. We were founded on a very basic double standard. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. Am I right? A group of a slave owners who wanted to be free, so they killed a lot of white English people in order to continue owning their black African people, so they could wipe out the rest of the red Indian people and move west and steal the rest of the land from the brown Mexican people, giving them a place to take off and drop their nuclear weapons on the yellow Japanese people. You know what the motto of this country ought to be? You give up a color, we’ll wipe it out. You got it.
So, anyway, about eighty years after the Constitution is ratified, eighty years later, the slaves are freed. Not so you’d really notice it, of course. Just sort of on paper. And that was, of course, during the Civil War. Now, there’s another phrase I dearly love. That is a true oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one: civil war. Do you think any country could really have a civil war? “Say, pardon me” [gun shots]—“I’m awfully sorry. I’m awfully sorry.” Now, of course, the Civil War has been over for about 120 years, but not so you’d really notice it, because we still have these people called Civil War buffs, people who thought it was a really keen war, and they study the battles carefully, and they try to improve on the strategies and the tactics to increase the body count, in case we have to go through it again sometime. In fact, some of these people actually get dressed up in uniform once a year and go out and refight these battles. You know what I say? Use live ammunition, [bleep], would you please? You might just raise the intelligence level of the American gene pool.
But what do you expect? Hey, come on, this is a warlike country. We come from that northern European, basically the northern European genes, the blue eyes. Those blue eyes. Boy everybody in the world learned real quick, didn’t they? When those blue eyes sail out of the north, you better nail everything down [bleep]. Nail it down, strap it down, or they’ll grab it. If they can’t take it home, they’ll burn it. If they can’t burn it, they’ll [bleep]. That’s what happened to us. And it’s a warlike country. C’mon, I mean, forget foreign policy. Even the domestic rhetoric is warlike. Everything about our domestic policy invokes the thought of war. We don’t like something in this country, we declare war on it. The war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on crime, the war on AIDS, the war on cancer. We’ve got the only national anthem that mentions [bleep] rockets and bombs in the [bleep] thing. You know what I mean?"

I edited my post to include the longer version of Carlin's "We Like War" presentation. I especially enjoy the part towards the end where he talks about how it's all really about men comparing the size of their dicks! Carlin was a genius. No one ever said it as well as he did. Brilliant man. Died too young.

And most Americans do not seem to understand that the Soviets were *invited* by the Afghan government to put down an insurrection. They think that the Soviets "invaded" Afghanistan, which is patently not true.

Actually it’s not true, and I hope you’re simply misguided by communist propaganda.

Режим Амина не пользовался популярностью, положение президента было шатким, а смена власти в Афганистане могла привести к его выпадению из советской сферы влияния. Более того, предполагалось, что Амин сотрудничает с ЦРУ и может сблизиться с западными странами, и, это было наиболее опасным, Хафизулла мог разрешить размещение военных баз НАТО на территории своей страны. Допустить появления войск вероятного противника у своих границ руководство СССР не могло, поэтому 12 декабря 1979 года Политбюро ЦК КПСС приняло секретное постановление «К положению в Афганистане». Суть его сводилась к тому, что необходимо устранить Хафизуллу Амина, на его место поставить Бабрака Кармаля, а для стабилизации положения послать в Афганистан войска.

27 декабря началась подготовка к штурму Тадж-Бека. Советские агенты подсыпали яд в еду Амина, когда тот давал обед по случаю возвращения из Москвы секретаря ЦК НДПА Панджшири. Ничего не подозревавшие советские медики смогли спасти ему жизнь, после чего спецгруппы КГБ пошли на штурм дворца. Бой во дворце длился 43 минуты. По воспоминаниям участников, хирург Анатолий Алексеев довёл Амина до бара. Афганский лидер присел к стене, но тут раздался детский плач и откуда-то выбежал сын Амина, который, увидев отца, бросился к нему. Амин обнял его, а спустя какое-то время пять бойцов спецгруппы КГБ «Альфа» ворвались в комнату и дали очередь из автоматов. Хафизулла Амин и его сын были убиты. Ночью кабульское радио сообщило, что по решению революционного суда Амин приговорён к смертной казни и приговор приведён в исполнение. Один из советских врачей, оказывавших помощь Амину, также был убит советскими спецназовцами.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Амин,_Хафизулла

Originally Posted by diogen_

Actually it’s not true, and I hope you’re simply misguided by communist propaganda.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Амин,_Хафизулла

Be that as it may, it is a different discussion for another time and I do not want to get into a dispute over it and derail this thread into a discussion about Soviet politics. My point is that the labels change over the years. Yesterday's "freedom fighters" become today's "terrorists" who become tomorrow's "freedom fighters" again. It's all a big semantics game.

Russian14: Do you even know how to have a discussion without insulting people? Maybe you would get more likes if you were not constantly insulting everyone all the time. Let's see you rise above the petty name calling and childish "neener neener" behavior and join in an adult, civil discussion.

As for me, I do not lump everything together. I do not like to engage in either/or, black/white, bad/good thinking. The world is much more complex than that.

Obama has done good things, and he has done bad things. I voted for him because my husband was dying of a heart condition and we wanted universal healthcare. And thanks to Obama, my husband is 1) still alive and 2) we will be able to purchase affordable healthcare for me in 2014 so that I can finally see a doctor too.

That does not mean I support the war in Syria. Should Obama invade Syria, however, that will not undo the good accomplished with health care reform.

Let's stick to the issues, please, and let's rise above this nonsense name-calling and slandering of people. There are a lot of things I could say about you as well, but I will refrain because frankly, I do not care to play in the детский сад.

(Deleted. L.)

Originally Posted by 14Russian

...

This if off-topic post and sounds strictly personal as like some other of you posts. Are you aware of existence of Private Messaging on this forum? Before I removed your post could you please send it via PMing?

P.S. I copy-saved your post in case you'd need it

Originally Posted by Lampada

This if off-topic post and sounds strictly personal as like some other of you posts. Are you aware of existence of Private Messaging on this forum? Before I removed your post could you please send it via PMing?

P.S. I copy-saved your post in case you'd need it

He knows that if he PM's me, I will just ignore it and not respond. He addresses me in a public forum because he hopes to gain points with those who already hate me. But I agree, all this personal attacking and nonsense has no place in a serious discussion.

I don't care who people voted for. It doesn't make some kind of blanket statement about people! It isn't as if Americans have a lot of choices in any case. It was Obama, or it was Romney, or it was one of a dozen other lesser candidates who would never win anyway. Simple choice and I feel no shame for it. My husband is alive today because of Obamacare. Nothing which happens in Syria can take that away from me, and there is STILL A CHANCE that Obama might back off from the precipice and decide against the air strikes, since so few Americans support this!

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I don't post for 'likes' unlike you. For me, it's not a popularity contest. Of course, the non-Russian mod will censor the truth I give. But, anyone who engages you is wasting their time since you will just pull the persecution/paranoia card any time anyone illustrates your lack of reason.

I'm not talking about your points but when someone disagrees.

It doesn't matter about your justification for voting for Obomber. Most Americans should have known what they were getting. There was plenty of criticism and insight about it prior to both elections. There's the internet, fyi. Maybe, you've heard of it?

You make a lot of assumptions, 14Russian... and you judge people too harshly. I am sorry that you see everyone as so inferior to yourself. My posts have nothing to do with wanting "popularity" - LOL - in case you didn't notice I have been attacked because of my "so popular" views on gay rights. Even my husband's website was hacked. So your point is meaningless. As for the victim card, I am no one's "victim" but I sure as hell am not going to shut up when people attack me. I'm going to call them on it, expose them, and do all in my power to stop the attacks.

I have nothing further to say to you.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...empty/2726493/

Russian state-owned media reported that two Russian warships were sailing for the eastern Mediterranean Sea to protect Russian interests as tensions escalate in the region.

The ships, a missile cruiser and a large anti-submarine vessel, are traveling from the North Atlantic and will arrive in a number of days, Reuters reported.

Middle East analysts say weapons and terrorist networks at Iran's disposal mean the threats should be taken seriously.

"Iran is a huge threat," said Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Both Iran and Syria have threatened to retaliate against Israel and other U.S. allies in the Middle East in the event of a U.S. attack on Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. Hundreds of Syrians in a region held by rebels were reported killed in an Aug. 21 attack.

So here is the really scary question: Are we looking at another proxy war between US and Russia? Or will Russia's response be even more direct? If the US invades Syria, will this escalate into a global conflict?

Alan Grayson On Syria Strike: 'Nobody Wants This Except The Military-Industrial Complex'

Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) speaks out in opposition to a US airstrike against Syria; says that such an action would only benefit war profiteers:

"One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire on the part of people to be the world's policeman," Grayson said on SiriusXM's "The Agenda with Ari Rabin-Havt," which aired Thursday morning. "For us to pick up this gauntlet even on the basis of unequivocal evidence of chemical warfare by the Syrian army, deliberately against its own people -- even if there were unequivocal evidence of that -- that's just not what people in my district want."

That doesn't mean that opposition is universal, Grayson allowed. "I did notice, for what it's worth, that the manufacturer of the missiles that would be used has had an incredible run in their stock value in the last 60 days. Raytheon stock is up 20 percent in the past 60 days as the likelihood of the use of their missiles against Syria becomes more likely. So I understand that there is a certain element of our society that does benefit from this, but they're not the people who vote for me, or by the way the people who contribute to my campaign," he said. "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."

Raytheon stock has in fact surged over the past two months, though it's been slightly shy of 20 percent.

Russia Worried About Strikes on Syria? Not Really | Features & Opinion | RIA Novosti

Some encouraging news from Russia.

One thing Russia will not do is fight for Syria. Lavrov said it explicitly Monday, and pundits were unequivocal in agreeing he meant it. Like many recent US-led military operations, a strike against Syria simply would not touch enough on Russia’s vital geopolitical interests, leaving Moscow without an incentive to expend the considerable economic and military effort required by overseas military operations, analysts said. Another concern would be public opinion: About the only example of Russia’s military involvement against a US-led military offensive was a sudden takeover by Russian paratroopers of a Kosovo airport in 1999, which left the world slack-jawed but had few consequences otherwise. In that case, however, Moscow could boast to the Russian public of its bold support for the Serbs, a brethren Slavic people perceived as unfairly attacked by the West.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Russia Worried About Strikes on Syria? Not Really | Features & Opinion | RIA Novosti

Some encouraging news from Russia.

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

I know what you mean. But I meant "encouraging" only in the sense that Russia does not plan to confront the US in a military way. In the US right now, there is a lot of speculation that Russia, China, and Iran will try to fight us. There are reports that Russian warships have started massing in the Suez. So, if the Russian article is accurate, it shows that Russia has no intent of intervening militarily.

As for the profits and losses from the tragedy, and the suffering of the Syrian people... that, of course, is sad beyond words.

Originally Posted by Basil77

I don't see nothing encouraging here. Just very cynical count of profits and losses from the tragedy that Syrian people currently suffer.

I just feel this is so incredibly tragic.

• Syria was a country where moslems and Christians were living happily side by side, each group having the option to be as religious or as secular as they wanted.
• They had a good standard of education and a decent free health care system.
• The country was reforming at a steady pace.
• Syria had taken care of millions of refugees from around the Middle East, primarily Iraqis and Palestinians. It showed great generosity on the part of the state and the people there.
• It's one of the oldest civilisations on earth and it's got amazing cities and structures that are on the world heritage list.

They're now going to be attacked, occupied, westernised / Americanised, dragged screeming and kicking into the global econonomy, which, for them will mean a position near the bottom: Sweatshop country.

Their country will then be exploited for bases and to further the US ultimate objective of invading the oil trophy No 1: IRAN.
That is the real name of the game; all serious security analysts are quite honest about it if you read serious articles in broadsheet papers.

And all this was roadmapped back in the 1990s, when the USA realised that sans the USSR, the Middle East would be theirs for the picking, if they played the manipulation and propaganda cards right. And it's not a consipiracy theory; the proof is available on Wikileaks and even Youtube,

Sure, the Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya interventions were miserable failures, from a human and democracy perspective. But the bases are there, and the oil is flowing, on Western conditions.... No price too high for that.

Bring your wallets out, Americans, because you will be funding yet another decade long war, and eventually the Iran war that's now written in the sky.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/wo..._20130829&_r=0

Britain Rules Out Military Strike on Syria.

Seems not all of Britain's lawmakers are as eager as Prime Minister Cameron is, to take orders from the US!

Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote by 13 votes on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response.

It was a stunning defeat for a government that had seemed days away from joining the United States and France in a short, punitive cruise-missile attack on the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad for reportedly using chemical weapons against civilians.

Thursday evening’s vote was nonbinding, but in a short statement to Parliament afterward, Mr. Cameron said that he respected the will of Parliament and that it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action over Syria. “I get it,” he said.

Exactly. So best way to do is support "the dictatorial government" (and I wonder, could exist non-dictatorial one in the East at all?) to suppress the opposition and take away their arms. Then, in gratitude Asad will unfold civic reforms, and may be even eventually lose the power.
Forecasts are gloomy, though, in any case. For many years it would be like Egypt or worse.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Exactly. So best way to do is support "the dictatorial government" (and I wonder, could exist non-dictatorial one in the East at all?) to suppress the opposition and take away their arms. Then, in gratitude Asad will unfold civic reforms, and may be even eventually lose the power.
Forecasts are gloomy, though, in any case. For many years it would be like Egypt or worse.

I think many people in the middle east want a non-dictatorial leadership, but they are inexperienced with it and it seems that every time a leader is established, he turns into a dictator, no matter how he got into power.

Originally Posted by maxmixiv

Exactly. So best way to do is support "the dictatorial government" (and I wonder, could exist non-dictatorial one in the East at all?) to suppress the opposition and take away their arms. Then, in gratitude Asad will unfold civic reforms, and may be even eventually lose the power.
Forecasts are gloomy, though, in any case. For many years it would be like Egypt or worse.

I thought we were discussing ways to help the Syrian people without heavy military intervention; what you're suggesting fails on both levels: it implies military intervention, + it's gonna ruin those people's lives completely, coz they will be defeated by the thugs; I don't get it unless some hidden sarcasm was meant which I didn't understand.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

I thought we were discussing ways to help the Syrian people without heavy military intervention; what you're suggesting fails on both levels: it implies military intervention, + it's gonna ruin those people's lives completely, coz they will be defeated by the thugs; I don't get it unless some hidden sarcasm was meant which I didn't understand.

I thought it was sarcasm mostly ))