I'm not being mean. Erebh said that a UN report showed that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons, but his own link contradicts him. I was just asking him to clarify his position and where his sources are.
I really don't know why you can't comprehend the word independent. It is an independent report, seriously jj, what is so difficult to understand. Just to make it completely clear - again. Not a Democratic report Not a Republican report Not a Russian report Not a Chinese report Not a Syrian report Not a UN report Not an Eskimo report Not a Thai report Not an EU report Not a school report How long does this list need to be for you to understand it is an INDEPENDENT report? Maybe you're just trolling tonight for fun but I'm out of patience - bon nuit!
This is ludicrous. Someone else chime in here and back me up! Was I questioning whether the report was independent or did I quote the article that said that there was only suspicion and no proof? I am super confused here. Someone come in here and sort this out. Here is what I am saying: According to your own source, there is no proof that the rebels used chemical weapons, only suspicion. Right?
All I know is that under Bashar al-Assad (and previously his father) Syria used to be a modern country where people of many different religions and ethnicities lived together in peace. The rebels on the other hand are to a large part Salafi extremists who are already terrorizing Alevis, Christians and Sunnis who disagree with their views. Obama pledges support to the rebels because his masters in Tel-Aviv want to see Assad removed for various reasons, it's that simple. Personally, I think there MUST be intervention - but on the side of Assad's government.
From what I remember, the UN said that the rebels may have used chemical weapons. A few days later the UK said that there was no evidence that the rebels had used a chemical weapon. The US was also skeptical.
Both my Parents are from Syria and i also have gone there once to visit my grandmother when i was sixteen, it was a pretty nice country also many ehinicities lived together as you said but there was religious racism all cristians are backed in to a corner and made fun of kids go at diffrent school depending on religion to, my cousins nephew belong to a gang since his 15 when i saw him the kid looked like mafia and was braging about the knife fights he got in too. so in my opinion no syria is a pretty shitty place , but things where getting better maybe slow but things were improving. I kind of got lost with erebh and JJ. i watch the news not much but enough to know that the rebels are at fault , i talked to my father just now he said that the US said that there was chemical use from the military but he doesn't believe it, so i am siding with him
I honestly think I would if I could be bothered with this conversation. The last two politically-lead threads on this site have just been getting me down every time I try to read them, and I'm really not sure why. What we have to remember is that, play arm-chair politicians all you like, real people are being butchered half a world away. All this stuff about UN reports and suspected so-and-so, who cares?
I'm of the same mindset at you, Lem. What bothers me is that people are dying. We're here discussing what actions should be taken and which side to take, when we should be taking the side of stopping the killing and violence. What's the point, ultimately? Violence begets violence. Ending the violence needs to be the aim, rather than trying to find a politically advantageous solution while people die. And everyone, play nicely. No point having a free speech policy if people don't use that free speech responsibly.
That's what I don't like about the US actions. If your going to help one side win, then put all your might into it, do it as quickly and as possible and stop the war. Seems silly to just give one side more guns to keep killing. Why not just end it now? Then at least someone will be the victor and some of the killing will stop. But then again, there is always war and death. It is just as much a part of existence as anything else.
[MENTION=52161]erebh[/MENTION]: I completely agree with you, this is another in a long line of blatant lies told by american administration, who, because they "do not recognise" international war crimes courts and tribunals (even though they send judges to them all to influence verdicts) can go around the world committing genocide after genocide, with no fear of repercussions. They carried out bombing campaigns against the UN resolution, they destroyed whole countries on fake "intelligence" claims, subsequently taking possession of all the precious resources, not to mention trillions in profit from re-building what they destroyed in the first place, and I don't see who can exactly stop them. They are the only country in the history of this world who abused another nation with nuclear weapons. That's their implicit threat. Nobody has a way of standing up to the US without causing nuclear holocaust, and not surprisingly, not many people in this world are keen to go down that line. This is just another demonstration of brute force, nothing whatsoever civilised in this, and I can only pray for all the "collateral damage" and their families.
What countries? I have a feeling this is going to be said so I'll just say this now: the Iraq war was not about oil. If it was. why not go for Saudi Arabia instead? There is more oil there than in Iraq. You have to remember that the Saudi's saw Iraq before invasion as a buffer between it and Iran. The coalition actually really upset Saudi Arabia with the invasion of Iraq, and it's not really a good idea to do that to wealthy business partners.
What would have happened (in our meagre opinions) if Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein had there way with changing the oil index from the US Dollar to the the African Gold Dinar? As Lemex pointed out, the wilful destruction of Iraq was not solely about oil, there was much to be gained such as Iraq's gold, communications and all of the other utilities not to mention another mid eastern catastrophe. It was also a nod to Israel, the governors of the Federal Reserve and the IMF, not to mention about 70% of the world's banks. Added to Iraq has basically been the rest of North Africa disguised as the so called 'Arab Spring'. Assad was onto the plan and rebelled, hence Russia and China saving his ass or he'd be kicked to death on the streets like Gaddafi.
^'Willful destruction'. I guess that's another way to put 'Liberation'. Making it seem like Saddam's Iraq was an innocent bystander instead of the fascist, totalitarian regime that it was. To suggest that Saddam was just some innocent bystander that just happened to attracted the US's attention is not just ahistorical, it's saying 'I'm glad there was a mass-murderer in charge of a country, just as long as there isn't a war'. If this is what you think then I am not going to condone it, I guess you have the courage of your own convictions. In answer to your question, though, I can honestly say I don't know. I'm not a prophet or an economist.
No one said he was an angel Lemex - why would you twist it into that? Tell me what he did to spark the 'liberation' that he hadn't been doing for thirty years? And that goes for Gaddafi and Hussein
That's not a twist, I had nothing to twist. If I did have something and was putting a subjective spin on it, that would be a 'twist' I don't know what started to ticking clock to invasion, I'm not going to pretend like I do. Again, why does that matter? Plans for an invasion of Iraq were apparently drawn up during the Clinton administration. I was 14 when the war started, I don't remember exactly what the international situation was at the time. Gaddafi, there was not an invasion of Lybia, that was a popular uprising. I shouldn't have to point out the difference there.
That's ok if you want to believe that a million arabs all woke up on the same day with the same rebellious feeling and started the overthrow of their rulers without the help of the CIA, but let's keep that separate because it's a whole different thread. It's also ok if you want to believe that the West watched these guys for 30 years (who were friends of the West for 25 years) murdering their own people and just had enough, after all, you were only 14. We'll leave it at that until you catch up.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Are you seriously suggesting that a nation of people living under an idiot can't form a consensus? I didn't actually say they had. People hesitate, times change, things happen. We knew what it was like in South Africa during Apartheid, why wasn't there intervention? Saying 'Why didn't anything happen' is just a statement when you get down to it. You've got to remember that sometimes you have to pick between what is bad and what is worse. You can't always do the right thing, and even when you try you can mess up. You can't just reduce these things to 'good and evil', the world doesn't work that way.
ok You need to read up on why Maggie Thatcher prevented intervention in SA, why she left Mandella rot in prison, why she said there was apartheid. Seriously Lemex, go read.
I think you've just proven my point. I'll reiterate. You've got to remember that sometimes you have to pick between what is bad and what is worse. You can't always do the right thing, and even when you try you can mess up. You can't just reduce these things to 'good and evil', the world doesn't work that way. I'll just add: 'Sometimes people don't want to do the right thing'. Hindsight is always 20:20, so the saying goes.
you know, the problem with political arguments here is that people have one idea of what is going on and don't deviate from it. They don't like to see what other people have to say, instead go scurrying through the interweb looking for anything that will back up their viewpoint. We are writers here, we should be open to everybody's view, mull it over in our heads and sometimes say, "You know what? You might have something there." Instead things get heated, my head being one of those things, we should be thinkers as well as writers.
