Quote :

"Most Middle Eastern troubles can be traced back to British imperialism, so let them clean up their mess they started so many years ago."

I don't think the US can be blameless but European imperialism has fucked up many a country in the ME, Africa and Asia. I'm all for us spending more time repairing our relationships with Central and South America and letting them deal with all that over there.

MONROE DOCTRINE MOTHER FUCKERS!!!

8/27/2013 2:14:08 PM

Quote :

"Sorry, but numbers matter"

Huh? That exactly what I am saying.

100,000 >>>>>>>>>>> 1,200

No one gives a shit that 100,000 have died and that another 100,000 could die in another 2 years, but as soon as a thousand die from a non-conventional attack, omfg, now Asad is evil and we should send him a message.

That's depravity.

8/27/2013 2:14:35 PM

1. We don't know the extent of the stockpile of chemical weapons they have.

Where it took 2 years to get to 100k based on your example above, it would take less than half a year to get to that same number using non-conventional weapson such as the ones used last week. But still

LEAVE IT ALONE.

8/27/2013 2:27:35 PM

So basically you are saying that the message being given to Asaad by Obama and others is:

Keep on killing your people slowly (relatively) FOR HOWEVER LONG YOU WANT, but kill them using a method which kills too efficiently/quickly, and we will take action.

8/27/2013 2:39:12 PM

yes, exactly

8/27/2013 2:41:15 PM

What I'm saying is why should we care at all? I mean the world hates us because of how nosey we've been in the past. Obama has tried his best to change that image (and in the processes weakening our stance in the world) but everybody still hates us. Our flag has come to represent a big bully to a large portion of the world. They burn our flag, urinate on it, shit on it, yet time after time we come to the aid of others.

If we want to get involved, send troops on the ground to help get refugees out and bandage up innocent bystanders. But nothing else. I realize no one is advocating troops on the ground yet, but I bet its coming.

And what if Russia draws their own "red line" in regards to our military action? Are we going to have a Syrian missle crisis?

I do have one question though - I'm somewhat ignorant of the background between Russia and Syria. Why does Russia care so much?

8/27/2013 3:07:22 PM

Russia's only Mediterranean base is in Syria.

8/27/2013 3:19:54 PM

No one can stop the administration from doing what they already decided they want to do. Proof has never been required before. This is Iraq all over again, and we are completely powerless to stop it.

8/27/2013 3:22:19 PM

duh

8/27/2013 3:45:27 PM

^^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUTwZCeBS0U

Quote :

"About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E20130825

8/27/2013 3:57:35 PM

Quote :

"I do have one question though - I'm somewhat ignorant of the background between Russia and Syria. Why does Russia care so much?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations

Quote :

"Russia enjoys a historically strong, stable, and friendly relationship with Syria, as it did until the Arab Spring, with most of the Arab countries.[1] In addition, Russia's only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus."

8/27/2013 3:58:42 PM

Quote :

"No one gives a shit that 100,000 have died and that another 100,000 could die in another 2 years, but as soon as a thousand die from a non-conventional attack, omfg, now Asad is evil and we should send him a message. That's depravity."

It's more like "all deaths are horrific, but it's in our best interest to stay out of it until someone starts using chemical or nuclear weapons because humanity has a vested interest in preventing their use."

It has nothing to do with the relative worth of life depending on how it is killed or in what number. The sheer efficiency and collateral damage of chemical and nuclear weapons demands attention. The potential for orders of magnitude more deaths should be concerning to you, completely independent of how many people have died in whatever arbitrary timeframe you want to make your argument.

8/27/2013 4:13:01 PM

That isn't to say I think we're justified in bombing Assad or taking any action until A)investigations prove it was him and not the opposition forces or B)the security council approves it, which will never happen.

8/27/2013 4:57:39 PM

yeah, i don't think our response will be due to any sort of bodycount or future number of dead Syrians. If our foreign policy was a function of dead Syrians, we would have already been [overtly] involved.

It's because don't want to allow chemical weapon usage, either in this conflict or in future ones. We're setting a precedent that their usage won't be tolerated, at least not in civil unrest or anything short of total war.

I also don't think we were just looking for a reason to get involved. I think it's pretty clear that we have not wanted to get significantly involved in this, because there are no good guys or even useful bad guys to support, and there's no reasonably foreseeable potential positive outcome.

8/27/2013 5:00:41 PM

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

8/27/2013 5:34:13 PM

^ damn! I so hope that is true and that it is somehow exposed to the masses and governments around the world.

8/27/2013 6:29:11 PM

^^lol at Daily Mail AND Infowars

And a "Malaysian hacker"

Yeah huh! Sounds legit.

[Edited on August 27, 2013 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/27/2013 6:35:17 PM

No hackers in Malaysia?

I don't know much about infowars but I challenge you to go to the DM site right now and point out any false articles.

8/27/2013 6:38:54 PM

Of course there are hackers in Malaysia. That's not the point. The point is that is a completely vague and unfounded assertion. It's like having a Canadian girlfriend that no one has met.

Here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

8/27/2013 6:42:21 PM

^^^
I agree, but it's from January. They got part of it right at least.

8/27/2013 6:53:24 PM

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/john-kerry-syria-chemical-attacks-moral-obscenity/68732/

I think it's really important to recognize how politicians use emotional manipulation, and this is a perfect example.

Quote :

"Speaking about the evidence of the attacks — images and videos of the dead — Kerry said: "I went back and I watched the videos...one more gut wrenching time... it is hard to express in words the human suffering they lay out before us." Addressing Russia, perhaps, Kerry said that anyone denying the attacks could occur needed to "check their moral compass." "

No proof, no facts, just a pure appeal to emotion.

8/27/2013 8:28:47 PM

We should learn from the WMD mess. Bad, unconfirmed intel leads to bad policy.

8/27/2013 8:38:54 PM

Quote :

"I also don't think we were just looking for a reason to get involved. I think it's pretty clear that we have not wanted to get significantly involved in this, because there are no good guys or even useful bad guys to support, and there's no reasonably foreseeable potential positive outcome."

8/27/2013 8:43:02 PM

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html

8/27/2013 8:54:56 PM

I think it's common knowledge that some of the "rebels" are jihadists and foreign al-queda-types.

This was posted on the first page, but if you haven't watched it you should: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/syria-behind-the-lines/

8/27/2013 9:21:02 PM

Quote :

"Sorry for the double post, but it looks like you guys can quit denying it happened / debating who did it."

Why? Because Obama said the government did it? Where is the proof? Just today the the Foreign Minister challenged the world to bring proof that they did it. Those are strong confident words. If the proof is so easily available, why would he say that? If anything, the government has shown to the world media pictures of chemical barrels, canisters, and gas masks that they say they seized from districts that they captured from the rebels. Yes, proof can be manufactured, and both sides can manufacture it.

Remember earlier this month when dozens of churches were burned in Egypt in 2 or 3 days after the government cleared the camps of pro-Mursi supporters which killed some 500 in the process? Who burnt the churches? The whole world says the MB supporters did it, and that is the american narrative. Well, that is completely or mostly false. Even Hala Gorani (CNN) was asking an MB member in the studio via phone why they are burning churches... how can people just say things without fucking proof? He totally rejected her claims and offered some evidence that it is pro-military plain clothes thugs who burnt the churches to make it seem like the MB did it.

Even a vicar has said the same. Here, read what he says.
http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/africa/6969-church-vicar-in-al-minya-the-baltigya-thugs-burnt-the-churches

And here are Christians saying the same in this video, that the gov thugs did it.
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2013/08/20138261662135305.html

8/27/2013 10:39:29 PM

^^^ No shit, that's why we've stayed more or less out of it.

Expect a response that will be enough to discourage further WMD employment, but not enough to significantly alter the balance of power or course of the war. From a US interest--not humanitarian--standpoint, the least bad option, at least for right now, is a stalemate.

If rebel leadership were to emerge that would more to our liking, and that we thought would be capable of filling the void post-Assad, then that would change. In the meantime, not disturbing the quasi-equilibrium (a) costs us the least blood, treasure, and as of now, probably political capital (certainly at home, and probably abroad), (b) keeps the power vacuum at least somewhat occupied, and keeps all the parties busy with each other, which is to say, not causing us significant problems, and (c) bides time for the off-chance that someone more desirable to back becomes an option,

8/27/2013 11:44:11 PM

All excellent reads. Various issues discussed in this thread are all touched upon, namely, good/bad guys, are the rebels innocent, who used the chemical weapons and why, what would US strikes look like, etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-evidence-of-chemical-attack-seems-compelling--but-remember--theres-a-propaganda-war-on-8778918.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/is-the-west-prepared-to-cross-the-rubicon-over-syria-probably-8784438.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/only-a-peace-conference-not-air-strikes-can-stop-further-bloodshed-8784836.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/syria-one-death-among-93000-8669700.html

And http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/did-syria-gas-its-own-people-the-evidence-is-mounting-8783590.html

[Edited on August 28, 2013 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

8/28/2013 12:12:52 AM

alright it was explained to me that the rebels have no capabilities to launch a chemical attack in the way this was launch. only the regime controls the rocket capabilities to have launched this attack so there is little doubt about who launched the attack now.

8/28/2013 1:06:21 AM

This will probably sound really bad, but I don't give a shit. That part of the world hates us and they are living in the stone age.

Let them kill each other. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of those dead little children would have grown up to strap a bomb to their chest.

It's time we tell the rest of the world to find a new Batman.

8/28/2013 1:42:52 AM

If either side had nukes you can bet they would have already used them. It's been a real total war for over a year at least. The only way to exit it is die or completely exterminate the other side, civilians included. The only way we could possibly help is to exterminate one side for them; the side we choose might as well be decided by a coin toss at this point.

8/28/2013 1:47:35 AM

This is a fantastic chart.

https://twitter.com/TheBigPharaoh/status/372030907806269441/photo/1

Sorry if it's been posted before.

8/28/2013 9:35:31 AM

I can't really tell if that chart is meant to be serious.

8/28/2013 10:09:14 AM

al qaeda doesn't hate the us on that chart

8/28/2013 10:26:40 AM

The chart is serious and mostly correct, but it is missing many arrows, and not what ^ said. I think the arrows are meant to be double headed. For example, US-Alqaida just one arrow of hate, as it is mutual. Other examples:

US-Israel there is one arrow of support, so it is mutual
US-Saudi there is one arrow also, etc.

However, some arrows are completely missing, for example, US-Turkey, oh, AND HELLO, US-Russia, etc.

Maybe if I feel like it, I will complete the picture one day soon. Is there a larger size available? I can't pinch and zoom that page on the iPad.

8/28/2013 10:39:33 AM

please watch
http://vimeo.com/73224397

please watch
http://vimeo.com/73224397

please watch
http://vimeo.com/73224397

8/28/2013 2:54:21 PM

you're gonna need to at least post a video title or description for me to click on any of those

8/28/2013 2:57:37 PM

Leaked Documents U.S. Framed Syria in Chemical Weapons Attack

They're all the same video.

8/28/2013 3:11:08 PM

It is about how the US has apparently helped the rebels carry out the attacks and then blamed the government. Refers to several articles in MSM sources, as well as the alleged leaked emails that gunzz posted about. Quite compelling. Not a proof, but compelling enough to seriously make you doubt that the government did it (and the US still has provided no proof that the US did it, just appeal to emotion and outrage).

8/28/2013 3:33:12 PM

Why would our government want or need to do that? I don't buy it.

8/28/2013 3:43:46 PM

Le duh, to have a pretext to attack Assad, someone they have hated for years and years.

Give chemical weapons to rebels, let rebels use them, then frame Assad... seriosuly, you don't see the military/strategic value in that? You don't know the history of involvement of the US in Middle East and South America in the past 40 or so years?

8/28/2013 3:48:14 PM

you are biased to believe videos, and its sometimes difficult to find sources that are cited

^^you don't buy that the government would fabricate evidence, or use evidence they knew to be false, as justification for a war? really? Iraq.

8/28/2013 3:49:46 PM

as I see it, i don't think we'd be itching to get in yet another war, especially in syria which doesn't really have anything for us.

8/28/2013 3:50:32 PM

^^I think the Iraq decision was based off of bad intel, not fabricated lies.

I have lost all faith in the federal government regarding domestic issues, however I do not think that they would fabricate lies to this extent. But thats beside the point - I don't see what the US has to gain in forcing the world to believe that Syria used chemical weapons. There's no oil to be gotten, no other physical resources in Syria, and unless you subscribe to the crackpot theory that Obama actually wants to help terrorist, I just don't get why they would do it.

[Edited on August 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM. Reason : asdf]

8/28/2013 3:54:48 PM

Dtownral, Look, I don't fully believe it, as I implied. But it does make you question the official narrative.

Bullet, No, not all out war, but just air strikes from the sea. Saying that Assad used chemical weapons gives the US a very good reason to use air strikes.


[Edited on August 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2013 3:55:32 PM

Quote :

"^^I think the Iraq decision was based off of bad intel, not fabricated lies."

not just bad intel, intel that we knew absolutely to be incorrect

8/28/2013 4:00:05 PM

Guys, did you watch the video? It shows screen grabs of several MSM website articles that you can look up yourself. Just watch it and then state what you think of this whole situation.

8/28/2013 4:05:50 PM

you already said that one of the MSM sources was the one above, which was from infowars.com. credible or not, that's going to make me ignore something every time.

8/28/2013 4:08:59 PM

Î am not classifying that as an MSM source. Screen grabs of various MSM news websites is what I am referring to, including BBC, etc.

P.S. that's not the attitude to have if you are looking for the truth, esp considering it is just 10 minutes long. Watch, then judge.

[Edited on August 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2013 4:13:01 PM

its hard to verify a screenshot, i prefer print media so i can follow a link

8/28/2013 4:18:50 PM