Obama will unilaterally attack Syria Thursday

[FluffyMcDeath]

Pipelines and energy are important factors.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

McCain's "Syria expert" lied about having a PhD and contracts with a lobby group that advocates for the rebels.

 

[metalman]

watch the video - it's hysterical. I hope it's available to you guys out of the US

looks like Fox News was right to be skeptical, Putin and Assad have made Obama and Kerry look like daffy duck

Analysis: Putin scores diplomatic win on Syria

"It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," said Fiona Hill, expert on Putin and director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution.

 

[robert l. bentham]

looks like Fox News was right to be skeptical, Putin and Assad have made Obama and Kerry look like daffy duck

Analysis: Putin scores diplomatic win on Syria

THERE IS NEVER A MASTURBATING SMILEY WHEN YOU NEED ONE...GUESS YOU ASS CLOWNS HAVE NEVER SEEN A MASTER AT WORK!!!

he played congress and the people... and worst of all he played them... and nobody can stand it... lol... congress was gonna approve what? CANT EVEN AGREE ON WHATS FOR LUNCH.... lol

 

[Glaucus]

It's a bit long I guess, but gives you a good idea about what these chemical weapons look like. It turns out these things aren't small. In fact, they're massive and not the sort of thing one easily sneaks around. If you have one of these things, people notice. And some even take videos.

 

[Robert]

I... gives you a good idea about what these chemical weapons look like. It turns out these things aren't small. In fact, they're massive and not the sort of thing one easily sneaks around. If you have one of these things, people notice.

Translation: couldn't *possibly* have been the rebels.
Therefore *must only* have been done by Assad.
Therefore bombing Syria is a good thing.
As long as it's the USA (and/or allies) doing the bombing.

 

[Glaucus]

Translation: couldn't *possibly* have been the rebels.
Therefore *must only* have been done by Assad.
Therefore bombing Syria is a good thing.
As long as it's the USA (and/or allies) doing the bombing.

Well, not quite. It's still possible that it was the rebels, as the guy in the video suggests. However, this certainly makes it clear that it's not really all that easy to fake such an attack. One must appreciate how difficult it would be to pull that off. Also, in the video he did mention where the rockets came from, direction wise, but it wasn't clear if that indicates who fired them.

I will say this though, most modern armies have radar units designed to detect launch sites for incoming rounds. The US used them against insurgents in Iraq who were shelling the green zone with mortars. Once detected on radar they'd return fire with heavy artillery - the insurgents learned to get out of the fire zone quickly. However the US response was so fast they would often leave the equipment behind. The rebels in Syria would need to have lots of these mobile launch vehicles to go through if the Syrians are using the same trick and I see little reason to believe they wouldn't. Also to keep in mind that Assad's forces still have an air-force and from the air these massive trucks should be easy to spot. And it would be trivial to spot and engage them while launching (these are missiles after all so they'd provide a nice trail of smoke back to the launch site for well more than enough time to make you very nervous if you were hanging out in the area). None of this proves the rebels or al-qaeda didn't do it. However, none of the facts here should allow anyone to believe that it was the rebels/al-qaeda that did it. The fact that we can't prove it was Assad is the main reason the UN hasn't sanctioned any action against Assad. But failing to prove the most likely scenario doesn't really help civilians being killed. And I could even argue that even if it is the rebels, from a civilian's perspective it doesn't really matter. There's already enough proven reason to take out Assad, if doing so also stops civilians from being gassed in false-flag attacks then that's a bonus.

Of course, for me it never was about the chemical weapons. And in a funny way, their use and how Obama completely bungled the response, any intervention in Syria is now that much harder. In my opinion this is a tragedy and we should all be ashamed for allowing this to go on. Clearly the way Syria was handled proves that there was no clandestine plan to spark dissent in Syria to allow some kind of Western attack. If that were the case they would have played it very differently just like Bush did and the attack would have happened some time last year (hint: if you're gonna do it, do it quickly and don't drag it out - worked great in Iraq, why mess with what works?). When this thread first started I was actually gonna make a bold prediction that there would be no attack against Syria any time this year but I chickened out. Now I wish I made that prediction. I had a feeling that no one really cares about Syria and a million people could be killed and still people won't do shit. But I also thought that maybe Obama painted himself into a corner and forced himself to do the right thing. But I was wrong, apathy and politics wins. Very depressing.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Of course, for me it never was about the chemical weapons. And in a funny way, their use and how Obama completely bungled the response, any intervention in Syria is now that much harder. In my opinion this is a tragedy and we should all be ashamed for allowing this to go on.

Indeed. We should lean on Saudi Arabia and Qatar to cut off the arms supply - oh, but the CIA has taken an overt role in that too now. The al-Nusra guys are pushing hard to shunt the "moderates" aside, which they will because they are moderate. That probably means the Syrians won't get to try out that new constitution and they'll all be growing beards and wearing burqas and we can criticize them for being a theocracy just like we did when the Taliban we backed took over in Afghanistan.

Clearly the way Syria was handled proves that there was no clandestine plan to spark dissent in Syria to allow some kind of Western attack. If that were the case they would have played it very differently just like Bush did and the attack would have happened some time last year

That's like saying that because the Bay of Pigs was a complete débâcle proves that the CIA didn't want to invade Cuba and take out Castro. It only proves that the guys running the destabilization didn't get the backing they hoped for. When the neo-cons pushed for Iraq they also had the Whitehouse and the State Department and the Department of Defence. The schedule has slowed considerably since then - there is a lot of internal resistance, including insubordination and leaking. Besides, Iraq didn't follow this pattern. The Syria campaign is much more like the Libyan campaign and the Serbian campaign and quite a lot of the actions in South America. The trick is to set up the situation, push it into chaos and rush everyone in - and if people get cautious and take enough time to look (or if you do too many of these back to back) if starts to get a little sticky. That a plan goes awry is no proof of lack of plan. The fact that all the same players are in there again funding the same old groups to cause trouble sure suggests that it's the same game being played.

Now I wish I made that prediction. I had a feeling that no one really cares about Syria and a million people could be killed and still people won't do shit. But I also thought that maybe Obama painted himself into a corner and forced himself to do the right thing. But I was wrong, apathy and politics wins. Very depressing.

I felt like making the same prediction but for different reasons - Russia is going to play hard-ball because this is a big deal for them (imagine if Russia was fomenting revolution in Canada and trying to create a case for military action. How would the US react to such an attack on an oil rich possession of theirs that shares a border with the homeland? Another factor is so much internal resistance in the US (not the people, because we know they don't matter) but among those that actually count. A decade of war has left the US with serious internal problems and has strengthened extremist Islam. Parts of the US military are pushing back, and even though Bibi thinks he wants Assad taken down there are plenty of folks that matter inside Israel who think he might be a bit crazy and would rather Assad and Al-Qaeda keep fighting each other for ever rather than have a winner.

Your bleeding heart liberal concern for the people of Syria (admirable, I feel the same way) is of no concern to the powers that be except that they can use it as a PR rationale that they can use to get people to support them killing the people of Syria and destroying their cities and infrastructure. The way to best serve the people of Syria is to shut down the arms flowing to Al-Qaeda. But watch, we may already be turning towards Somalia again (it's on the list of 7 countries - the order doesn't really matter) so we can let Syria fester a while longer. We will let Al-Qaeda degrade Syria for us (since we couldn't get the backing to go in and degrade it directly).

You find it depressing that the US didn't blow stuff up in Syria (which would affect Assad not one bit but would impact civilians) and I find it depressing that there are people who think that letting America blow things up is really a solution to someone else's civil war - or that throwing gasoline on fires is a good way to put them out.

 

[Glaucus]

Will Saletan rips apart Putins BS.

The Russian president’s lecture about peace in Syria is all hypocrisy and lies.

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, wants to teach us about peace. A U.S. strike on Syrian military facilities “would constitute an act of aggression,” he writes in today’s New York Times. It would “result in more innocent victims,” “further destabilize the Middle East,” and endanger “the entire system of international law and order.” Putin laments that “military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States.” Citing Russia as a model, he concludes: “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”

How cute. A lecture on nonviolence from Syria’s chief arms supplier.

And it gets better from there, but the article should be read from start to finish.

 

[Glaucus]

Indeed. We should lean on Saudi Arabia and Qatar to cut off the arms supply - oh, but the CIA has taken an overt role in that too now. The al-Nusra guys are pushing hard to shunt the "moderates" aside, which they will because they are moderate.

No actually, it's because the only ones with guns in Syria are foreigners or those with weapons provided to them by foreigners. You're right, al-Nusra is one group as well as all the other al-Qaeda linked groups. But Assad's forces also fall into that category. Both are bad and any true peace in Syria requires that both be removed with force. But the House of Saud is no friend of al-Qaeda Fluffy. Your argument here is as ludicrous as the nonsense that guys like Tigger spout out about Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. They're sworn enemies and have little reason to help al-Qaeda.

Btw, I find it interesting that you've completely avoided the fact that Palestinians in Syria as well as Hamas in Gaza has openly supported the anti-Assad group. They're not powerful enough to be influential, but isn't that peculiar?

That probably means the Syrians won't get to try out that new constitution and they'll all be growing beards and wearing burqas and we can criticize them for being a theocracy just like we did when the Taliban we backed took over in Afghanistan.

That's not likely to happen. Just because the majority of Syrians are Sunni doesn't mean Syria will transform into Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia. Post civil war Lebanon still remains one of the more liberal places in the area, there's no reason to believe a drastic change in Syria would take effect. The Syrian Sunnis will not likely tolerate al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda might be winning the battles but they can't win the war or the country.

That's like saying that because the Bay of Pigs was a complete débâcle proves that the CIA didn't want to invade Cuba and take out Castro. It only proves that the guys running the destabilization didn't get the backing they hoped for. When the neo-cons pushed for Iraq they also had the Whitehouse and the State Department and the Department of Defence. The schedule has slowed considerably since then - there is a lot of internal resistance, including insubordination and leaking. Besides, Iraq didn't follow this pattern. The Syria campaign is much more like the Libyan campaign and the Serbian campaign and quite a lot of the actions in South America. The trick is to set up the situation, push it into chaos and rush everyone in - and if people get cautious and take enough time to look (or if you do too many of these back to back) if starts to get a little sticky. That a plan goes awry is no proof of lack of plan. The fact that all the same players are in there again funding the same old groups to cause trouble sure suggests that it's the same game being played.

Not very convincing. The fact is there's no reason to believe there ever was a plan or a "campaign" either. The fact is you start off with that belief and spend amazing amounts of energy to prove to us that's how it is. That's not how sane, rational people behave. Anyway, my point is that there was no real concerted effort behind Syria. If you want to retreat and regroup around the idea that some rogue CIA dude tried to force the issue but failed, then have fun with that.

Parts of the US military are pushing back, and even though Bibi thinks he wants Assad taken down there are plenty of folks that matter inside Israel who think he might be a bit crazy and would rather Assad and Al-Qaeda keep fighting each other for ever rather than have a winner.

I think Bibi wishes this Syrian war never happened. It has made it much hard politically for Israel to act against Iran. Interestingly, there's hope that the US and Iran might actually at least agree to meet and discuss things like civilized human beings. Again, not the sort of play I'd expect from a United States that is secretly trying to ramp up a major war in the region. I think at some point you're just gonna have to give up on all this conspiracy theory crap.

Your bleeding heart liberal concern for the people of Syria (admirable, I feel the same way) is of no concern to the powers that be except that they can use it as a PR rationale that they can use to get people to support them killing the people of Syria and destroying their cities and infrastructure. The way to best serve the people of Syria is to shut down the arms flowing to Al-Qaeda. But watch, we may already be turning towards Somalia again (it's on the list of 7 countries - the order doesn't really matter) so we can let Syria fester a while longer. We will let Al-Qaeda degrade Syria for us (since we couldn't get the backing to go in and degrade it directly).

The way your mind works is a scary thing. It's hard to believe you can be so right about some things and so wrong about others. It's come to the point that when I do agree with you on something I wonder if I'm wrong!

You find it depressing that the US didn't blow stuff up in Syria (which would affect Assad not one bit but would impact civilians) and I find it depressing that there are people who think that letting America blow things up is really a solution to someone else's civil war - or that throwing gasoline on fires is a good way to put them out.

Oh ok, but you're totally cool with Russia supplying Assad with the heavy weapons he needs to kill all those people. You're nuts and your logic makes no sense! A US strike can turn the tide very quickly against Assad and the proof is in Assad's sudden eagerness to get rid of his chemical weapons. You really need to get your head out of your ass.

 

[Robert]

That's not likely to happen. Just because the majority of Syrians are Sunni doesn't mean Syria will transform into Afghanistan or even Saudi Arabia.
...
The Syrian Sunnis will not likely tolerate al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda might be winning the battles but they can't win the war or the country.
...
Not very convincing.

Indeed. Not very convincing at all, Mike.

 

[faethor]

Was this the Thursday before, or after, Obama took away my guns? Did I miss it?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The way your mind works is a scary thing.

It's not my mind, it's the minds of a vocal and forceful subset of the ruling classes. And, yes, it's scary but not preposterous. Machiavelli didn't invent this stuff, he merely described it from history to the Prince. The world still operates the same way.

Neither you nor I can truly understand the mind of a person who would kidnap, rape, torture, kill, dismember and eat a child - but if you came across the evidence of such a person would you just ignore that evidence because the idea that a person could do that would be too unsettling? There is a tendency for humans to do that - especially if the monster is a person in a position of power. Church leaders have been known to do some heinous things (and always with a good tale about why it's for the best) and the congregation will choose not to see it and to ostracise those who do.

Its incredible to you to contemplate that the western nations would use terrorism to weaken a Middle Eastern state that stands between it and Iran but isn't incredible that Gaddafi would have funded terrorism and that the US would have encourage Saddam to wage war on Iran after the Shah fell. Is it incredible to you that Prince Bandar was involved in funding the mujahedin against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Is it incredible that he would be involved in a similar operation against the Soviets in Syria?

What seems to be completely understandable to you is that a country in economic crisis would nobly volunteer to spend a few billion dollars it doesn't have to blow up someone elses strategically placed country for their own good and without any expectation of gain.

 

[Glaucus]

Neither you nor I can truly understand the mind of a person who would kidnap, rape, torture, kill, dismember and eat a child - but if you came across the evidence of such a person would you just ignore that evidence because the idea that a person could do that would be too unsettling? There is a tendency for humans to do that - especially if the monster is a person in a position of power. Church leaders have been known to do some heinous things (and always with a good tale about why it's for the best) and the congregation will choose not to see it and to ostracise those who do.

Yes, there's that. But there's also this: A pathological liar won't believe anyone else. And there are those who want to kidnap, rape, torture, kill, dismember and eat children - but don't. There's a monster in all of us, some repress it, some control it and some let it control them. Are you trying to tell me I'm naive or too scared to face reality? Maybe I'm just a liar who doesn't believe everyone's a liar. Assad was a doctor who wanted to help people. Now he orders heavy bombardments on civilians. Many Syrians just wanted to be free of oppression and now are beheading Alawites and Christians in the streets in the name of allah. Yes, monsters all of them. But this isn't a two sided fight, there are many interests and many factions and nobody trusts anyone. War is always horrible and civil wars are always the worst and this one is particularly bad. But despite all of that, I still think there's a chance for resolution but it's not gonna be easy. But one thing is certain, both Assad and the Islamists need to be removed. With force. And that's gonna happen eventually, the only question is when.

Is it incredible to you that Prince Bandar was involved in funding the mujahedin against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Is it incredible that he would be involved in a similar operation against the Soviets in Syria?

Prince Bandar is doing exactly that Fluffy. And with the CIA's help. Except like I said above, there are more than two sides fighting in Syria. Your over simplification of the conflict is an attempt to obfuscate what's going on so that your pro-Assad position makes some sense. But it's not that simple.

A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works To Build Support to Topple Assad

Prince Bandar and Mr. Jubeir have told the U.S. they don't necessarily expect a victory by the Syrian rebels anytime soon, but they want to gradually tilt the battlefield in their favor, according to American officials who have met with them.

The Saudi plan is to steadily strengthen carefully selected groups of rebel fighters not in the radical Islamist camp, with the goal of someday seeing them in control in Damascus. Difficult as such an effort is proving to be, the Saudi thinking goes, not trying would risk a future in which Syria was dominated either by extremist Muslims from among the rebels or by Iran, Riyadh's arch rival in the quest for regional dominance.

The thing is, things have changed since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. It would make little sense for Prince Bandar to help al-Qaeda take control of Syria as it would in many ways be a far worse outcome.

What seems to be completely understandable to you is that a country in economic crisis would nobly volunteer to spend a few billion dollars it doesn't have to blow up someone elses strategically placed country for their own good and without any expectation of gain.

There is a gain, for all of us and it's called stability. It's you that believes the war was initiated through US operatives. However, to me it makes little sense as I don't see the US gaining much as it is. Syria is war torn and full of islamists - exactly not the type of country useful for the supposed oil pipelines you proclaim are the true motivation to all this. Even Israel isn't really getting much benefit to this as it distracts from their grievances with Iran and is making Westerners very weary of meddling in any Middle Eastern affairs (and the fly over issue you keep repeating is laughable). Meanwhile relations with Iran are showing signs of thawing. I can only hope that something happens diplomatically via Iran that could help bring peace to Syria, but I doubt it and even if that were the case it'll probably take years. It is however an interesting development. And btw, the US has not yet committed to spending a few billion dollars to actually help Syrians in any noble way. By all accounts it appears their only real interest are those chemical weapons and who's hands they might fall into. So your premise is a false one I would say, a straw man even.

Also, Syria doesn't stand in the way of Iran. The US (and Israel) are fully capable of attacking Iran with Syria the way it was a few years ago. This idea that Syria is a prerequisite for Iran is preposterous. If Iran was the target they missed their golden opportunity when they had their army next door in Iraq. But really, they don't need Iraq either.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yes, there's that. But there's also this: A pathological liar won't believe anyone else. And there are those who want to kidnap, rape, torture, kill, dismember and eat children - but don't. There's a monster in all of us, some repress it, some control it and some let it control them.

I'm sorry, Mike, but you've already gone off the rails. You simply don't understand and, like a lot of people, you believe that everyone is more or less the same but for their "morals" and "self control", i.e., their choices. At least that is what the above implies you believe. Saying that addicts, for example, just LET drugs control them is like saying that paraplegics just LET gravity stop them from getting off the floor. Just down the road from me is one of the top authorities on psychopathy - Robert D. Hare.

I get angry sometimes, I have the fleeting thought that I'd like to see someone dead, but nothing happens, I don't act on it because human brains generally have large amounts of neurons dedicated to inhibiting actions that have bad outcomes and that would transgress our moral sense. We can use empathy to relate to what it would be like to be attacked, maimed, killed and we can use empathy to see how things would be for their loved ones, to sense the loss they would feel and the anger they would feel - but for some people ... well, they don't have that. Killing someone to get their bike has as much emotional impact for them as simply finding a bike in a ditch would be for other people. Woe to anyone who assumes they are dealing with a neurotypical. Don't ignore that little nagging voice that tells you things aren't quite right.

But that is just one route to evil, those that can do evil directly without compunction. Even normal people can commit horrors - just being ordered to can suffice. But the fact that you have one who orders and one who follows creates whole new opportunities for evil and the more links in the chain between the wilful and the willed the more remote and less responsible becomes the one who gives the orders.

I've never killed anything bigger than a rat but I go to McDonalds and order a burger with not a hint of discomfort because the killing is done for me by others far away and the only feeling I have is that of the pleasure of eating. Never having to see what you are killing makes things so much easier. Never having to answer for what you do makes it perfect. Clearing the troublesome brown people off the land is as easy (emotionally) as clearing brush to build your summer house. All that you destroy is inconsequential because of the rewards you reap.

Other mechanisms that aid the acquisition of psycopathy is some sort of mythological justification. Why can I clear the weeds from my garden just so I can grow my veggies? Because I am a human being and my life is worth more than the lives of weeds. Why could the British slaughter Indians? Because British people were civilized and worth more than savages. God favoured the British. Americans are also favoured by God and they are exceptional which means they can bomb whoever they want and always be on the side of God and righteousness. Some people believe that they are actually chosen by God and that the whole world is theirs to do with as they see fit (and all those unchosen people are just cattle). The Nazis were exceptional too, they just knew they were better than everyone else and it was their right to make the world fit for them to live in.

But though the people on top may not have a problem planning evil acts, how do you get other people to go along with you? The two main methods are fear (they will kill us if we don't kill them) and appeal to a higher purpose (to make the world as God would have it, to save the infidels, to bring freedom, to liberate the women, to get rid of the evil ruler who torments his people) and it has ever been thoughout history.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Are you trying to tell me I'm naive or too scared to face reality?

Yes, I am calling you naive (and possibly scared). Our guys are not "good guys" just because they are "our" guys.

Maybe I'm just a liar who doesn't believe everyone's a liar.

Everyone ISN'T a liar, but the liars are. Most people are simply trusting, allowing the liars to lie to them and happily accepting justifications that make no practical sense. Most people are earnest people who simply accept without thinking appeals to emotion. Most people happily give to cancer charities and churches run by charlatans because they want to help and they trust the people that tell them how to help.

Assad was a doctor who wanted to help people. Now he orders heavy bombardments on civilians.

Obama was a community organizer and now he drones women and kids. When Obama kills civilians it is (if mentioned) collateral damage. When Assad shells rebel positions and civilians die then Assad is targeting civilians, yet many of the civilians are grateful that he is fighting the rebels because the rebels shell civilians deliberately and slaughter civilians deliberately because their objectives are met by destroying the current society and demonstrating that the government cannot protect the people. This is insurgency 101. But we don't care to mention what the rebels are doing because it's not in our interests to have the public question why we are helping terrorists.

Most Syrians are just trying to get on with their lives, they aren't trying to behead anyone.They just want to live in security as they did before. Sure, they didn't like everything about the way they were governed but they largely prefer Assad to the alternatives.

War is always horrible and civil wars are always the worst and this one is particularly bad.

And we are making it go on and on by adding small arms to the conflict (and some heavy ones too through complient states).

But one thing is certain, both Assad and the Islamists need to be removed. With force. And that's gonna happen eventually, the only question is when.

There is nothing "need" about it. You might as well have argued for the Iraq war by saying "But one thing is certain, both Saddam and the Bathists need to be removed. With force." and you would have correctly pointed out that such a statement was bull, and it still is.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Prince Bandar is doing exactly that Fluffy. And with the CIA's help.

Good, now we're on the same page.

Except like I said above, there are more than two sides fighting in Syria.

There are ALWAYS more than one side - so again, we can agree.

Your over simplification of the conflict is an attempt to obfuscate what's going on so that your pro-Assad position makes some sense.

Number one - I'm not oversimplifying, I'm just using a wider lens. You just want to stop at Syria without looking at the interests of the wider players. You are the one with a comic book narrative. Assad is evil because he (like Saddam) gasses his own people and we all know that gassing people is the height of evil because Hitler (who refused to authorize the use of gas on the battle field because he felt that it was abhorrent, having survived gas attacks himself in the trenches in WWI) gassed women and babies. We know that droning kids and frying them with White Phosphorus and giving them cancer with depleted uranium are all signs of godly benevolence but gas, that's so unconventional. Oh sure, the US has vast stockpiles of chemical weapons and sure they are going to miss the deadline for the treaty agreed on destruction of the stockpiles but the US only has three times the estimated stockpile of Syria for ... good?

But in your magical world we will throw guns into the region and they won't get into the wrong hands and the bullets won't kill any innocent civilians but will only kill Assad, his cackling henchmen and the naughty but very able fighting force) of Islamists and then the whole country will blossom in peace and order because the people will shrug of the Islamists because they were just so able to shrug off the much less bad Assad.

And my position is "pro-Assad"? Both you and I argued against the Iraq war and both you and I were told we only did so because we were Saddam lovers. You know was an unfair accusation against you but you think it's completely fair game to use against me now. Spilling more weapons into a war zone won't make things better. If it did then we would be remiss in our responsibility for not shipping vast numbers of AK-47s to the West Bank where the people there live under an oppressive (and illegal) regime. Should we decide who the proper owners of Palestine are by the "democracy of bullets"?

Does that make any sense to you? To you, a person that has argued FOR gun control, who has taken the position that people don't need assault rifles: does it make any sense that now you are saying that some people DO need assault rifles, and the more the merrier because that will make their country better. That will make their lives better. Oh, just not people who live in your neighbourhood, but people in neighbourhoods that are very far away - you're OK with flooding them with assault rifles. Cross fire between warring factions, that's not good for your family, but someone else's sons and daughters, yes, of course. War is good and righteous and blessed as long as it's way over there. Right, Tigger?

The thing is, things have changed since the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. It would make little sense for Prince Bandar to help al-Qaeda take control of Syria as it would in many ways be a far worse outcome.

Nothing has changed. War and power and empire still go on the same way. Nothing has changed since before Rome. Nothing has changed since before Egypt. "It's different this time" is the mantra of snake oil medicine men. "You've tried the other snake oil, you've tried Johnson's snake oil, you've tried Benson's snake oil, you've tried Jenkins' snake oil and all of that was rubbish but THIS snake oil; this snake oil is different!!"

Do you think that the US really needed to set up a functioning government in Afghanistan or did they just want to get rid of a Soviet aligned one and deny the territory to the Russians? Do you think the US needs a functioning government in Syria? A Syria in chaos might be a problem for Israel (but Saudi Arabia wouldn't mind that at all) and it would be a big deal for the Russians (but the US wouldn't mind that at all) and it would provide and excuse for Israel and the US to bomb the crap out of the place from time to time so as to fight "terrorism" and it would be a hassle for Iran who already has problems with US funded terrorist groups in Northern Iraq and then Saudi backed terrorists could accumulate in Syria and percolate into Iran slowly corroding their society.

It took multiple decades of sanctions and bombing and disarming to prepare Iraq for invasion. The US won't want to rush into Iran until they are on their knees (at which point we'll go in a "save" them).

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

What's in it for "the Saudis"?

What about Russia? (BTW, the guy interviewed is NOT a fan of Putin)

Meanwhile the FSA and Al-Qaeda continue to merge.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Can the Americans really tell the good guys from the bad guys?
And does the instability and terrorism from one place spread to other places?
And how are those extremist Islamist groups doing that Syria will so quickly shrug off?

Meanwhile the opposition National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change struggles on and welcomes the chemical weapons deal.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Who is the real enemy? (According to Howard Bloom about three weeks ago)