Thread: The crisis in Syria

Originally Posted by Deborski

There was a lot of good the Soviet Union did,

I actually like the USSR better every day, as I think about it.

The USA would never dare to touch Syria, if the USSR had still been around!

The Syrians would still have their cities intact, schools, hospitals and a dignified future. As it looks now, they are doomed to be the bottom of the pile for decades to come, regardless of what happens.

Probably, Assad will be toppled sooner or later, if actual Western airstrikes commence.

And the sweatshops, French call centres, multinational banks and Euro/US multinationals will move in. Hurrah, drop the social democracy for pure unabridled capitalism with some really desperate poor people who lost everything..

And once people can afford it; McDonalds and European super market chains, as happened places like Romania where people are only marginally better off than they were in Syria.

Syria under Assad was not a bad country; it took in millions of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees and helped them integrate, it allowed religious freedom for different muslim faiths, Christians and even Jews, despite their views on Israel. It provided good, free education for all and free healthcare. They had reached a status quo with Israel.

Sure -- they needed a bit of glasnost / perestroika ----> and that was exactly what Assad had started doing when all this happened.

This is a horrible tragedy! Too bad there is no superpower around that can reign in the USA!! It's getting more out of control every day.

Only a Peace Conference, Not Air Strikes, Can Stop Further Bloodshed | Common Dreams

This editorial is very thought-provoking. It discusses how the US airstrikes (which are expected shortly) will NOT end the bloodshed in Syria, and proposes more meaningful, peaceful alternatives.

The sense of urgency among foreign powers generated by the present crisis should be used to launch the much-delayed peace negotiations in Geneva. A peace conference between the warring sides was proposed by the US and Russia in May, but has been repeatedly postponed. It is unrealistic to imagine for now that negotiations between people whose prime aim is to kill each other will lead to any long-term political solution for Syria. The priority should rather be to prevent the continuing escalation in the violence and the further disintegration of Syrian society.

A ceasefire is the greatest need, in which power-sharing would be geographical with each side holding the territory it controls. Such a truce should put in place and monitored by UN teams. It might not cover all the country and would no doubt be frequently breached, but it would be better than the present bloody anarchy. There were hundreds of ceasefires during the Lebanese civil war and they were regarded with cynicism by the Lebanese, but thousands more people would have died without them.

Why has a peace conference not happened before? Within Syria the main reason is that government and opposition each believe they can still win and do not contemplate sharing power with anybody.

One of the dangers of the air strikes now being considered by the US is that, unless they are accompanied by a fresh drive towards a peace conference, the opposition thinks it is half way to getting the Western powers to win the war for it. Nevertheless, the opposition can be pressured by their foreign backers, supposing they wish to do so.

Peace conferences have the best chance of succeeding when one side knows it has won and wants to formalise its victory while the defeated want the best terms possible. Alternatively, peace negotiations may be productive when both sides are exhausted and come to realise they are not going to win a complete victory. The danger of supplying more weapons to the opposition is that it is not going to enable them to win but will simply fuel the level of the fighting.

Well, I called the White House today and told them NO WAR! as did all of my friends, but I very much doubt anything we say matters at this point.

Potential U.S. Strike On Syria - Business Insider

President Obama is considering a strike on Syrian military targets involving sea-launched cruise missiles or possibly long-range bombers that would last no more than two days, according to senior administration officials and reported by Karen DeYoung and Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

The limited strike would seemingly be a response to allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people before dawn on August 21. Hundreds were killed and thousands suffered "neurotoxic symptoms."

Originally Posted by Deborski

Well, I called the White House today and told them NO WAR! as did all of my friends, but I very much doubt anything we say matters at this point.

Potential U.S. Strike On Syria - Business Insider

Deb, "WAR" sounds horrible, I agree; but it has to be something a little bit more than THAT to be called a "WAR"; I think it's (all) gonna end pretty soon...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Deb, "WAR" sounds horrible, I agree; but it has to be something a little bit more than THAT to be called a "WAR"; I think it's (all) gonna end pretty soon...

It doesn't matter what word you want to call it. It means bombing and killing people. Words like "air strike" or "surgical" "intervention" only sterilize and shift the meaning. I'd just as soon call a spade a spade. Air strike = bombing and killing people.

People in the US are starting to freak out about Syria, now that our government is saying an air strike will commence as soon as Thursday...

I am hearing mostly opposition to the war from everyone discussing it. There are a few people who support air strikes, but they do not seem very well informed about the situation and they tend to shut up when the more knowledgeable people start explaining why the air strikes are an incredibly bad idea.

Not helping the situation, is a fake news site claiming that Putin is threatening to launch air strikes at Saudia Arabia. It's an outright lie, but unfortunately the fake news story has been picked up by other fake news sites and people are sharing it on facebook. Naturally there is no confirmation of this at any major news sites in US or Russia that I have been able to find. The fake article originated at "EU Times" - which is actually a right-wing/libertarian/teabagger propaganda site:

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria | EUTimes.net

The intent of this fake article seems clear to me - frighten people so that they will be more likely to support military action.

A lot of Americans are calling the White House, calling our Congress and Senate, doing all we can to urge them AGAINST this... but it seems that US government has a will all its own and is not interested in the will of the people.

Russia and China are both promising "catastrophic" consequences if the US goes through with the air strikes. I have no idea what these consequences might be. Someone needs to stop the US, but how to do that without actually going to war against America? I have absolutely no idea. All I can hope is that cooler heads prevail...

Originally Posted by Боб Уайтман

было время, когда убить считалось нормальным. Съесть врага - нормальным. Захватить народ, превратить его в рабов или ограбить, заставить платить дань - нормальным. Принести в жертву младенца...

Сейчас что-то изменилось? И едят, и убивают, и покоряют народы. Может быть под другим соусом (под разговоры о нарушении прав человека и т.д.), но делают всё то же самое. Кстати, раньше детей ели более гуманно. О них плакали. Во время голода в деревне в 30-ые годы: "Вот уже Манечку съели, а теперь Ванечку засолим". А сейчас просто, без сантиментов, выбрасывают в окно или на помойку.
Вы зря лишаете древних людей эмоций. Они не были монстрами. Об этом говорят древние культы, наскальная живопись и здравый смысл. Даже животные имеют эмоции и умеют плакать. Кстати, животные умеют быть более искренними, чем люди.
У Энгельса я встречал мысль о том, что развитие человеческого общества - это развитие человеческого греха. Что капитализм потому опередил феодализм, что сумел развить алчность и сделать из него двигатель.
В Библии сказано: "Что было, то и будет; и что делалось, то и будет делаться, и нет ничего нового под солнцем".
В общем, с какой стороны ни зайди, ясно, что теория преимущества нашей морали над моралью "дикарей" не выдерживает критики.

Что касается ваших слов о том, что войны не должно быть, то это пока лишь слова, которыми оправдываются ещё более серьёзные войны, чем те, которые подавляются.

Originally Posted by Deborski

According to this article, Saudi Arabia is basically telling Russia "Stop helping Assad and we will give you oil.

Арабам не понять души самурая. Думают, что мы меркантильные собаки.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Keep helping Assad, and we will tell our Chechen friends to terrorize your citizens during the Winter Olympics in Sochi."

У нас у самих есть "чеченские друзья", которые загнали "чеченских друзей" саудитов в такие ямки, что им до Сочи ползти и ползти.

Евгений Сатановский: "Для того, чтобы ударить по Ирану, США необходимо ликвидировать Сирию".

...если есть гонка по минному полю, и вас непременно хотят обогнать, так пропустите вперед желающих. Собственно говоря, зачем страдать от очередной драки, в которую американцы и европейцы по своей инициативе, и по инициативе своих арабских и турецких союзников влезают.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Арабам не понять души самурая. Думают, что мы меркантильные собаки.

Вы всерьез полагаете что в помощи личностям вроде Ассада есть некое благородство?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Вы всерьез полагаете что в помощи личностям вроде Ассада есть некое благородство?

Вы не представляете, насколько высоко это благородство. Просто Вы смотрите другой телевизор. Поэтому у Вас такая реакция. Мы с Вами жертвы разных пропагандистских машин.

Что касается фразы "помощи личностям вроде Ассада", то у нас в СМИ проблема рассматривается глубже. Это у американцев почему-то принято сводить всё к личностям. Наверное, чтобы проще было смещать и назначать новых марионеток.

Originally Posted by iCake

I've just run into this article. It's in Russian. But the point of it is that "the West" will wage war against the "regime of Bashar Asad" in a couple of days

I wonder what the implications would be

It makes no sense that Assad would gas his own people. It has also been reported that he has been "winning" (whatever that means) against the rebels. There's also a large contigent within the rebels that are said to be Al-Qaeda, which as you know, are said to have U.S. funding from time to time. Everything points to the acts being perpetrated by the rebels. This parellels to Irag (already mentioned) and is a good point to keep in mind. The U.S. and their allies are no stranger to deception to accomplish various goals. There are morons in the U.S. that still support Obomber, though. It's unbelievable.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

It makes no sense that Assad would gas his own people. It has also been reported that he has been "winning" (whatever that means) against the rebels.

так и есть
но сейчас некоторые страны пытаются перекричать здравый смысл, чтобы выиграть в своих шкурных интересах

Originally Posted by Deborski

Russia and China are both promising "catastrophic" consequences if the US goes through with the air strikes.

Россия и Китай совершенно четко представляют последствия
Если Ближний Восток падет, то внимание США переключится на Россию и Китай и тогда наступит очередная "Холодная Война", но на это раз экономическая

Originally Posted by Doomer

так и есть
но сейчас некоторые страны пытаются перекричать здравый смысл, чтобы выиграть в своих шкурных интересах

"Перекричать смысл" , "выиграть в своих интересах" - не сочетаются эти слова в русском языке.

Каждое предложение должно начинаться с большой буквы.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Someone needs to stop the US, but how to do that without actually going to war against America?

Никто Америку не остановит, если она сама вдруг не сочтёт это целесообразным. А это вряд ли. Вчера на канале Россия 24 была передача об экономической целесообразности войны в Сирии. Повышение цен на нефть больше ударит по Китаю, а не по США. Война станет аргументом для расширение лимита на дефицит бюджета США и т.д. Оказалось, что со всех сторон эта война выгодна Америке экономически.
Наш МИД занимается Сирией, а Путин демонстративно только внутренними делами (наводнением на Дальнем Востоке). Не знаю, станет ли Иран воевать за Сирию. Но и у самой Сирии неслабая армия и отличается духом (в отличии от иракской). Посмотрим, недолго осталось.

Originally Posted by Юрка

Никто Америку не остановит, если она сама вдруг не сочтёт это целесообразным. А это вряд ли. Вчера на канале Россия 24 была передача об экономической целесообразности войны в Сирии. Повышение цен на нефть больше ударит по Китаю, а не по США. Война станет аргументом для расширение лимита на дефицит бюджета США и т.д. Оказалось, что со всех сторон эта война выгодна Америке экономически.
Наш МИД занимается Сирией, а Путин демонстративно только внутренними делами (наводнением на Дальнем Востоке). Не знаю, станет ли Иран воевать за Сирию. Но и у самой Сирии неслабая армия и отличается духом (в отличии от иракской). Посмотрим, недолго осталось.

С этим я вообще согласна. Я рада, что наконец мы можем согласиться. Конечно, это не значит, что я рада о войне. На самом деле мне грустно без слов!

A short, but somewhat meaningful humor break, courtesy John Cleese of Monty Python fame:



ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.


The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.


The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.


Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."


The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."


Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..


The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.


Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short...

Review & Outlook: Loose Lips on Syria - WSJ.com

From this article:

An American military attack on Syria could begin as early as Thursday and will involve three days of missile strikes, according to "senior U.S. officials" talking to NBC News. The Washington Post has the bombing at "no more than two days," though long-range bombers could "possibly" join the missiles. "Factors weighing into the timing of any action include a desire to get it done before the president leaves for Russia next week," reports CNN, citing a "senior administration official."

The New York Times, quoting a Pentagon official, adds that "the initial target list has fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria's Russian-made attack helicopters are deployed." The Times adds that "like several other military officials contacted for this report, the official agreed to discuss planning options only on condition of anonymity."

Typical, Murka, typical. Shoot first. Talk later.

I just get totally sickened by this. How many bloody more times is this going to repeated!!
How long until people get it? These wars help NOBODY apart from the weapons, oil and engineering industries.

It's been done in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, misc. countries in South America and in East Asia in the Cold War.

Syria was NOT even a particularly bad dictatorship. Check out the film series "Syrian School" by the BBC for a realistic view of Syria as it was. This was a relatively decent country and Al-Assad Jr. was quite enlightened as a middle eastern leader.

It makes me sick to think my tax money will be used to destroy Syria even further in the interest of some sinister agenda

One of those, being to weaken the region around Iran, with the aim of war with Iran.
There is at least one regular member here, who lives in Iran, a really sweet person judging from her posts.


--------------------------------------------------
National demonstration: No attack on Syria

Stop the War Coalition, 31 August 2013.
National Demonstration: assemble Saturday 31 August, 12 noon, Temple Place, London (nearest tube Temple)

The national demonstration on Saturday will gather at Temple Place (near Temple tube) and march via Parliament and Downing Street, ending in central London for a political rally to say No attack on Syria.
Called by Stop the War and CND.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Lampada

"Перекричать смысл" , "выиграть в своих интересах" - не сочетаются эти слова в русском языке.

Каждое предложение должно начинаться с большой буквы.

это точно