Thread: Here we go again USA vs Syria

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Based in what we know about the history of the conflict in Irak and why USA justifying the invasion to remove Sadam it is enough for me to believe more what the ladies at the local hairdressing saloon have to say than what the USA "intelligence services" report.
So far I support Putin's view, give us the proof......

You and me both. The other story sounds somewhat plausible at least. The official line that Assad is responsible makes zero sense. To paraphrase Putin, 'you don't use chemical weapons when you have opponents on the run, especially when a team of UN weapons inspectors is in town'. The rebels on the other hand, cornered in a number of key positions are screaming for external intervention.

So yeah, give us proof, and not only that chemical weapons were used, but who they were used by. Unfortunately, the UN is only tasked with determining IF chemical weapons were used, which seems quite likely, not by WHOM, which is the question that really matters.

I'm very sceptical of the US "a line in the sand" response just as I am of it's purported morality because...

- The US didn't have a problem providing expertise to build chemical plants for Saddam in the 80's,
- Didn't have a problem supplying Saddam intelligence when he was gassing Iranian positions
- Was happy to turn a blind eye when Saddam was gassing the Kurds by the thousands (you may have heard of Saddam's cousin, 'Chemical Ali').

What's a few hundred thousand Kurdish deaths between allies? The only conclusion I can make is they only seem to care when it furthers their interests. But that was then, and this is now, right?

Unfortunately, evidence seems to point to the contrary. The people running the show in both Bush Administrations appear to be have considerable influence in Obama's administration. I found it curious that Obama (a Democrat) had a Republican Secretary of Defense (Chuck Hagel). On the surface, the appointment is not out of the blue - he seems to have almost Democrat views and is very critical of Bush junior's policies. This is where it gets interesting. The key people supporting his nomination are those whose policies he has publically criticised, including:
1. Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor to Bush Senior and Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to Bush Junior)
2. Robert Gates (Bush Senior's CIA Director and Junior's Secretary of Defense)
3. Colin Powell (Bush Senior's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Junior's Secretary of State)

Why? - Only logical conclusion is that despite the rhetoric, he best represents their interests (which I've touched on in another topic - bottom two thirds f of this post http://www.aulro.com/afvb/1274350-post28.html, but that is a topic for another thread). Almost everyone in the Bush administration who occupied positions of influence on foreign policy issues also had strong ties to the energy (oil and gas) sector. Chuck Hagel is unsurprisingly no exception, and is serving on Chevron's board of directors.

Originally Posted by Offender90

- The US didn't have a problem providing expertise to build chemical plants for Saddam in the 80's,
- Didn't have a problem supplying Saddam intelligence when he was gassing Iranian positions
- Was happy to turn a blind eye when Saddam was gassing the Kurds by the thousands (you may have heard of Saddam's cousin, 'Chemical Ali').

all those things were 20-30 years ago.

governments change.

Originally Posted by Eevo

all those things were 20-30 years ago.

governments change.

Ideology and soberbia do not and is well established in the powerful groups behind the political parties AKA in Australia as faceless
As we post here about USA and their attitude the Brazilian government has called the USA ambassador to explain why USA government gave orders to spy on the private and mobile phones of the president.
Also they have done the same with the Mexican president.

Originally Posted by Eevo

all those things were 20-30 years ago.

governments change.

Originally Posted by Eevo

all those things were 20-30 years ago.

governments change.

The beauty of the current democratic systems is the illusion of elected policy. Rotate the figure heads enough and they dodge trial, diffuse tensions. The people in government change but institutional agendas can be maintained. Atrocities can be committed and there is no dictator to lynch, we are expected to blame ourselves as electioneers. Genius power play.

Another example of a confused democracy is illustrated by terrorists who claim to attack a democratic population because they are ultimately responsible for military actions in the middle east. Either the terrorists are naive or they aim to make the American people question their actual role and influence over government decision making - who is actually responsible?

Perhaps then, the biggest threat to 'democratic' government institutions is the full fruition of democratic ideals. But fortunately for them we are a world cuisine eating, suburban oasis living, holiday making, happy thrill seeking bunch of self interested people who would much rather not be disturbed.

Hang on we are talking Syria here.... Im'a soap box wafflin again.

Originally Posted by Eevo

all those things were 20-30 years ago.

governments change.

And the more they change the more they stay the same => What Manic said!

Originally Posted by manic

The beauty of the current democratic systems is the illusion of elected policy. Rotate the figure heads enough and they dodge trial, diffuse tensions. The people in government change but institutional agendas can be maintained. Atrocities can be committed and there is no dictator to lynch, we are expected to blame ourselves as electioneers. Genius power play.

i.e. Nomatter who gets elected, the same group of people occupy key positions of power and influence over foreign policy.

Originally Posted by Offender90

But that was then, and this is now, right?

Unfortunately, evidence seems to point to the contrary. The people running the show in both Bush Administrations appear to be have considerable influence in Obama's administration. I found it curious that Obama (a Democrat) had a Republican Secretary of Defense (Chuck Hagel). On the surface, the appointment is not out of the blue - he seems to have almost Democrat views and is very critical of Bush junior's policies. This is where it gets interesting. The key people supporting his nomination are those whose policies he has publically criticised, including:
1. Brent Scowcroft (National Security Advisor to Bush Senior and Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to Bush Junior)
2. Robert Gates (Bush Senior's CIA Director and Junior's Secretary of Defense)
3. Colin Powell (Bush Senior's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Junior's Secretary of State)

Russia Detects Two missile Launches in Mediterranean

Russia on Tuesday announced that its missile early warning system had detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline.

The launches took place at 10:16 am Moscow time (0616 GMT) and were detected by the early warning system in Armavir in southern Russia, the defense ministry said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies.

It said Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had already reported to President Vladimir Putin about the event, which comes amid growing expectations of Western military action in Syria.

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Russia Detects Two missile Launches in Mediterranean

Russia on Tuesday announced that its missile early warning system had detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline.

The launches took place at 10:16 am Moscow time (0616 GMT) and were detected by the early warning system in Armavir in southern Russia, the defense ministry said in a statement quoted by Russian news agencies.

It said Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had already reported to President Vladimir Putin about the event, which comes amid growing expectations of Western military action in Syria.

Apparently Israel was 'testing' a missile in a joint US / Israel exercise.

Israel was testing a missile, not the waters - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz

What they were really testing is anyone's guess.
- Testing Syrian radar capabilities?
- Russian radar capabilities?
- Checking if Russians are providing intelligence to Syrians?
- Testing Russia's response to the launches?
- Testing the purpose of Russian ships in the Mediterranean?

Who knows - a bit like the Russian launch of a Topol ICBM over Syria and Israel last year - who knows what the purpose that test was.

‘UFO’ over Middle East reportedly a Russian missile test

Nothing like a "practice missile launch" to get the other players to show their hand