Syrian civil war

[obyknven]

 

Meanwhile some Americans become a bit worrying  about future Syrian war

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/what-to-expect-during-the-next-stage-of-collapse_08292013

 

 

So, if a strike does occur, what can we expect to happen over the next few years?  Here is a rundown…

1) Many U.S. allies will refrain from immediate participation in an attack on Syria.  Obama will continue unilaterally (or with the continued support of Israel and Saudi Arabia), placing even more focus on the U.S. as the primary cause of the crisis.

2) Obama will attempt to mitigate public outcry by limiting attacks to missile strikes, but these strikes will be highly ineffective compared to previous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

3) A no fly zone will be established, but the U.S. navy will seek to stay out of range of high grade Russian missile technology in the hands of Syria, and this will make response time to the Syrian Air Force more difficult.  Expect much higher American naval and air force casualties compared to Iraq and Afghanistan.

4) Iran will immediately launch troops and arms in support of Syria.  Syria will become a bewildering combat soup of various fighting forces battling on ideological terms, rather than over pure politics and borders.  Battles will spread into other countries, covertly and overtly, much like during Vietnam.

5) Israel will probably be the first nation to send official ground troops into Syria (and likely Iran), citing a lack of effectiveness of U.S. airstrikes.  American troops will follow soon after.

6) Iran will shut down the Straight of Hormuz sinking multiple freighters in the narrow shipping lane and aiming ocean skimming missiles at any boats trying to clear the wreckage.  Oil exports through the straight of Hormuz will stop for months, cutting 20% of the world’s oil supply overnight.

7) The Egyptian civil war, now underway but ignored by the mainstream, will explode due to increased anger over U.S. presence in Syria.  The Suez Canal will become a dangerous shipping option for oil exporters.  Many will opt to travel around the Horn of Africa, adding two weeks to shipping time and increasing the cost of the oil carried.

Saudi Arabia will see an uprising of insurgency that has been brewing under the surface for years.

9) Gasoline prices will skyrocket.  I am predicting a 75%-100% increase in prices within two-three months of any strike on Syria.

10) Travel will become difficult if not impossible with high gasoline costs.  What little of our economy was still thriving on vacation dollars will end.  Home purchases will fall even further than before because of the extreme hike in travel expenses required for families to move.

11) Russia will threaten to limit or cut off all natural gas exports to the EU if they attempt to join with the U.S. in aggression against Syria.  The EU will comply due to their dependency on Russian energy.

12) Russia will position naval forces in the Mediterranean to place pressure on the U.S.  I feel the possibility of Russia initiating direct confrontation with the U.S. is limited, mainly because countries like Russia and China do not need to engage the U.S. through force of arms in order to strike a painful blow.

13) China and Russia will finally announce their decision to drop the dollar completely as the world reserve currency.  A process which already began back in 2005, and which global banks have been fully aware of for years.

14) Because of China’s position as the number one exporter and importer in the world, many nations will follow suit in dumping the dollar in bilateral trade.  The dollar’s value will implode.  China, Russia, and the war in Syria will be blamed, and global banks including the Federal Reserve will be ignored as the true culprits.

15) The combination of high energy prices and a devaluing dollar will strike retail prices hard.  Expect a doubling of prices on all goods.  Look for many imported goods to begin disappearing from shelves.

16) Homelessness will expand exponentially as cuts to welfare programs, including food stamps, are made inevitable.  However, welfare will not disappear, it will merely be “adjusted” to fit different goals.  The homeless themselves will be treated like criminals.  The roaming bands of jobless drifters common during the Great Depression will not exist during a modern crisis.  State and Federal agencies will pursue an “out of sight, out of mind” policy towards the indigent, forcing them into “aid shelters” or other bureaucratic contraptions designed to conditioning the homeless to accept refugee status, making them totally dependent on federal scraps, but also prisoners on federally designated camps.

17) Terrorist attacks (false flag or otherwise) will spread like wildfire.  Israel is highly susceptible.  The U.S. may see a string of attacks, including cyber attacks on infrastructure.  Syria and it’s supporters will be blamed regardless of evidence.  The White House will begin broad institution of authoritarian powers, including continuity of government executive orders, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, etc.

18) Martial Law may not even be officially declared, but the streets of America will feel like martial law none the less.

19) False paradigms will flood the mainstream as the establishment seeks to divide American citizens.  The conflict will be painted as Muslim against Christian, black against white, poor against rich (but not the super rich elites, of course).  Liberty Movement activists will be labeled “traitors” for “undermining government credibility” during a time of crisis.  The Neo-Conservatives will place all blame on Barack Obama.  Neo-Liberals will blame conservatives as “divisive”.  Liberty Movement activists will point out that both sides are puppets of the same international cabal, and be labeled “traitors” again.  The establishment will try to coax Americans into turning their rage on each other.

20) The Homeland Security apparatus will be turned completely inward, focusing entirely on “domestic enemies”.  The domain of the TSA will be expanded onto highways and city streets.  Local police will be fully federalized.  Northcom will field soldiers within U.S. border to deal with more resistant quarters of the country.  Totalitarianism will become the norm.

 

[Rostere]

To be honest, like I said earlier, I'm actually for an intervention in Syria.

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

 

Of course there are extremists among the ranks of the rebels. But don't paint things black and white. There are also sincere democratic movements. Regardless of the incident of chemical weaponry, he's a dictator who has been brutally oppressing his own countrymen. Beyond all doubt, destroying Assad's air force and artillery would be a service to Syria's population. The US has but a limit on this operation to 60 days, I think 30 or 40 might be enough.

 

Plus, for Sannom: Qatar is very likely not supporting Sunni extremists, but most likely a movement resembling the FJP from Egypt or Turkey's AKP.

[pmp10]

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China?

There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Evidence of what? Is the US going to let itself be convinced that the people of Saudi Arabia are crying out for freedom and that the Saudi king is a brutal dictator that should be toppled?

 

Assad, like any other leader, in any country, is fully within his rights to put down a rebellion. How is a leader to manage an uprising if not by force of arms? What is he supposed to do, buy them a coffee at Starbucks and send them on their way?

The US, Israel and certain EU countries purposefully escalated the uprising to a full scale civil war.

 

Assad in fact has no choice but to fight to the bitter end because if he gives up they'll hang him in a kangaroo court like Saddam Hussein to cover up their own crimes. What exactly do you expect of him?

To jump into the sunni noose or die like a dog due to lack of adequate medical care in a US sponsored court like Milosevic?

[Drowsy Emperor]

The other day a former US military attache in Syria, in other words a CIA spook openly said on CNN that using cruise missiles on supposed chemical weapons will be ineffective due to them being stored in hardened bunkers. He also said that there are far too many rocket delivery system for them to be destroyed this way.

 

He continued to say that the US could easily get drawn in further because they'll have to start using airplane delivered bunker busters (thereby going further than planned). He also said its very likely that planes will be shot down, necessitating military rescue operations which in turn leads to full scale invasion down the road.

 

The only questions are if this was the plan from the start and how other countries will react.

[Hildegard]

To be honest, like I said earlier, I'm actually for an intervention in Syria.

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

 

Of course there are extremists among the ranks of the rebels. But don't paint things black and white. There are also sincere democratic movements. Regardless of the incident of chemical weaponry, he's a dictator who has been brutally oppressing his own countrymen. Beyond all doubt, destroying Assad's air force and artillery would be a service to Syria's population. The US has but a limit on this operation to 60 days, I think 30 or 40 might be enough.

 

Plus, for Sannom: Qatar is very likely not supporting Sunni extremists, but most likely a movement resembling the FJP from Egypt or Turkey's AKP.

 

Didn't see much people here painting things black and white until your post. 

 

Evil dictator Assad against sincere freedom loving democratic movement of the FSA and its allies. I was told they'll be organizing a Gay parade in support to their homosexual brothers and sisters on the outskirts of Damascus and al-Nusra is holding a convention up north about religious tolerance. Hope they won't be bombed by Assad's air force or artillery.

 

Oh wait, here is a video from the religious tolerance convention by al-Nusra funded by SA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61zo1Zpxe4 (I'm sure they're chanting Obama, not Osama) 

[Hildegard]

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China?

There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries.

 

 

And what evidence does the US have hat Assad used Chemical weapons? Please do tell me.

 

On the other hand, I'll help you with the most convincing evidence: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

 

The Israeli 8200 unit, equal to the American NSA, an utmost objective impartial trustworthy source of information. Especially when it comes to Syria. And don't forget, we have a word from Mr.Kerry and President Obama that US intelligence on Assad's use of Chemical weapons is compelling. Well, that's enough from me, when do we launch?  

[Walsingham]

It's hardly normal Israeli behaviour to want to trade Assad, in spite of his interference in Lebanon, for some unknowable regime. Is it, HIlde?

 

The only narrative I can come up with for the Israelis trying to bring the US in is to try and force Obama to rely on them for support. This would dial back him sidling away from them whistling Dixie. But that's me practically fictioneering.

 

As for a youtube video showing extremists among the rebels what does that prove we didn't know already? Just saying.

[kgambit]

 

Meanwhile some Americans become a bit worrying  about future Syrian war

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/what-to-expect-during-the-next-stage-of-collapse_08292013

 

 

Seriously?  Brandon Smith, the nut job survivalist who founded the Montana Safe Haven and is trying to push his barter based economic system thru his Alt_Market,com website is your economic and military expert?    REALLY?

 

(Try reading the section immediately after the portion that Oby copied from the link ....  it's a hoot.)

 

 

 

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, most likely. An utterly partial propaganda organisation (allegedly funded by MI6) that was run by a single person from his basement in Coventry (?)

 

Is that syrianhr.net or syrianhr.org?  Do you have a link that supports the alleged funding by MI6?  Not suggesting you are wrong, just want some clarification.

 

Hildegard, on 05 Sept 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

 

......   an utmost objective impartial trustworthy source of information.

 

 

Let me see if I have this right.  You discount sources because they don't fit your model of what is happening and therefore must be  biased, (e.g. the UK article on the Israel intelligence, or SOHR), yet you believe without question the videos posted from the three YouTube accounts of a guy called Eretz Zen who posts a thoroughly one sided set of videos  (Last time I checked over 254 videos and everyone is pro-Assad / Anti-rebel)  The same  Eretz Zen who claims on his Twitter account to be "A secular Syrian opposed to having my country turned into a Taliban-like state." and we only have his word to take for that  The same Eretz Zen who posts videos without attribution, without confirmation and which, in at least two cases are known to have been faked. 

 

That's what you call an objective, impartial and trustworthy source of information? 

Edited September 5, 2013 by kgambit

[pmp10]

 

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China?

There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries.

 

 

And what evidence does the US have hat Assad used Chemical weapons? Please do tell me.

It has common sense and frankly that should be more than enough.

And the points stands - any evidence gathering is not only pointless but also a complete waste of time.

There are no objective information that can be realistically obtained that would ever break through Russia's and China's shield of interests or your vault of conspiracy theories.

[Drowsy Emperor]

What conspiracy? Is everything that contradicts CNN and BBC a conspiracy today?

 

Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons that would inevitably inflame pubic opinion in a war he's winning on all fronts. Even the most biased reports admit the rebels are losing. Rebels need a US intervention or they're dead. Rebels use chemical weapons, US gains pseudo justification for war. US intervenes.

 

Put the two and two together please.

[Hildegard]

 Hildegard, on 05 Sept 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

 

......   an utmost objective impartial trustworthy source of information.

 

 

Let me see if I have this right.  You discount sources because they don't fit your model of what is happening and therefore must be  biased, (e.g. the UK article on the Israel intelligence, or SOHR), yet you believe without question the videos posted from the three YouTube accounts of a guy called Eretz Zen who posts a thoroughly one sided set of videos  (Last time I checked over 254 videos and everyone is pro-Assad / Anti-rebel)  The same  Eretz Zen who claims on his Twitter account to be "A secular Syrian opposed to having my country turned into a Taliban-like state." and we only have his word to take for that  The same Eretz Zen who posts videos without attribution, without confirmation and which, in at least two cases are known to have been faked. 

 

That's what you call an objective, impartial and trustworthy source of information? 

 

 

I discount the source of the so called evidence because it comes out of the country that is a sworn enemy of Syria and the current regime. It comes out of the country that has several times in the past few years bombed positions in Syria using their air force and therefor breaking international law. It comes out of the country that isn't in any way unbiased or in a position to be an impartial source of evidence. The so called evidence is no slum dunk to prove anything and especially depending from whom it came from. 

 

When it comes to the video I posted it's just one of countless evidence out there that among Syrian opposition there are bunch of Islamist and Jihadist. There is a major group called Al-Nusrah that publicly sided with Al Qaeda funded by US allies and indirectly by the US itself. There are tens of thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, same bunch like the ones that came into Iraq a few years back. But it's no breaking news that US supports whomever depending when it suits them. 

 

Getting back to the source of the 'evidence'. It's like we have a trial one subject against a conglomerate in which one member of the conglomerate says it has evidence against the accused, won't represent it to the court, we have to trust their word and because of it pass a sentence of guilty against the accused. And the evidence is a so called communication intercept, like the ones showed in the UN security council before the Iraq invasion. With only evidence like that you couldn't accuse a person for one murder in a normal judiciary, but I guess it's enough to start a military strike against another state. 

Edited September 5, 2013 by Hildegard

[Hildegard]

 

 

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China?

There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries.

 

 

And what evidence does the US have hat Assad used Chemical weapons? Please do tell me.

It has common sense and frankly that should be more than enough.

And the points stands - any evidence gathering is not only pointless but also a complete waste of time.

There are no objective information that can be realistically obtained that would ever break through Russia's and China's shield of interests or your vault of conspiracy theories.

 

 

An accusation has common sense based on someones belief and hence it's righteous, justified and correct. 

 

LOL

 

The only theory here I see is the dogmatic point of view that Assad is the one that used Chemical weapons. Anyone that says otherwise is a nut, pro-Russia, pro-China and David Icke fan.

[Hildegard]

It's hardly normal Israeli behaviour to want to trade Assad, in spite of his interference in Lebanon, for some unknowable regime. Is it, HIlde?

 

The only narrative I can come up with for the Israelis trying to bring the US in is to try and force Obama to rely on them for support. This would dial back him sidling away from them whistling Dixie. But that's me practically fictioneering.

 

As for a youtube video showing extremists among the rebels what does that prove we didn't know already? Just saying.

 

Given the past it's really normal behavior for Israel to produce whatever it's needed to harm a longtime enemy of Israel. With Assad out of the picture Hezbollah is going to lose an irreplaceable ally. Syria torn by inner conflict perfectly suits Israel way better then Assad. Without him Iran is left alone with US military around them and political/military US puppets. And I firmly believe all of this is a prelude for the military intervention against Iran in time to come. Video showing extremist among rebels is just one out of many evidence I bring out every time there is someone portraying Assad opposition as freedom kitten loving people. 

[Walsingham]

It's a conspiracy theory if the only thing you can provide by way of evidence is "X wants Y. Y happens, therefore X made it happen." That's simply not a rational way to perceive any sort of reality. Let alone geopolitics.

 

If I want to go through a stop light, and it changes to green, does that make me a fething magician?

 

~

 

Hilde: Let's be quite clear. I don't say that US foreign policy is sensible or omniscient. I'm not saying that they wouldn't quite like to have a go at Iran, because they're holding a knife to an oil artery.

 

All I'm currently saying is three things, and I think I share them with Obama:

 

1. Globally the international community can't just wish things to happen and cross its fingers

2. One of the things it is currently wishing for and not doing anything about is a total moratorium on the use of chemical weapons on civilians

3. Striking Assad, when Assad is on the ascendant does not automatically result in an extremist win. Indeed the hope is that if weakened he will try to sit down with t moderates in earnest and instigate some reforms in order to unite against the fundis.

 

The only point where we differ is wanting both proof and a god damned plan of action. Post-Iraq I feel the public or at least Parliament/Congress are justifiably skeptical on both points.

[ShadySands]

I just leave it here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

It's a conspiracy theory if the only thing you can provide by way of evidence is "X wants Y. Y happens, therefore X made it happen." That's simply not a rational way to perceive any sort of reality. Let alone geopolitics.

And what evidence for Assad doing it has been presented as of now ? It's not that crazy to see yet another bunch of inept rebels trying to sucker the West into being their air support.

[Drowsy Emperor]

It's a conspiracy theory if the only thing you can provide by way of evidence is "X wants Y. Y happens, therefore X made it happen." That's simply not a rational way to perceive any sort of reality. Let alone geopolitics.

 

If I want to go through a stop light, and it changes to green, does that make me a fething magician?

 

~

 

Hilde: Let's be quite clear. I don't say that US foreign policy is sensible or omniscient. I'm not saying that they wouldn't quite like to have a go at Iran, because they're holding a knife to an oil artery.

 

All I'm currently saying is three things, and I think I share them with Obama:

 

1. Globally the international community can't just wish things to happen and cross its fingers

2. One of the things it is currently wishing for and not doing anything about is a total moratorium on the use of chemical weapons on civilians

3. Striking Assad, when Assad is on the ascendant does not automatically result in an extremist win. Indeed the hope is that if weakened he will try to sit down with t moderates in earnest and instigate some reforms in order to unite against the fundis.

 

The only point where we differ is wanting both proof and a god damned plan of action. Post-Iraq I feel the public or at least Parliament/Congress are justifiably skeptical on both points

 

And your conclusive evidence of chemical weapon use against civilians by Assad, presented by an unbiased source, is where?

You never entered this discussion with rational arguments, it was just "innocent people are dying, quick we need to act to kill the evil dictator, and don't think too hard about it either!

 

The only thing the cruise missiles will do is destroy infrastructure that civilians need, empty government buildings evacuated long before the missiles start flying, kill innocent people when they inevitably miss and do **** all to the Syrian army. They'll do **** all to Assad too, who will be in a hardened bunker somewhere.

That's what happened in '99. 

 

It doesn't take a great amount of intelligence to deduce that these actions are in fact just terror tactics against civilians to convince them, by force, that a regime change is necessary. 

What use was there in destroying government buildings like the federal army HQ in Belgrade center in '99? Everyone knew it was empty and unused at that point, just a pretty building built way before the government of the day that was supposedly the target of the bombing.

A pointless waste of a million dollar missile a rational person would say.

In truth it was destroyed in an attempt to cow the civilians that walk by it every day in one of the busiest streets of the city out of anger because the airstrikes weren't doing squat against the army on the ground.

 

I know exactly what's going on through the minds of the people in Syria right now, probably better than anyone on this forum. The sunni, the shia, the christians, none of them want the US there. None of them want bombs flying over their heads. The only ones who do are army pricks, paid NGO's and fringe politicians that will sit out the bombs in their bases and bunkers or even in neighboring countries waiting to seize power and finally stop being the nobodies they are.

[Guard Dog]

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

[Gfted1]

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

[Rostere]

 

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

 

 

The US has been declining in power (relative to the rest of the world) since about the end of WW2. IIRC the most significant growth in US power (again, relative) took place in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

 

 

To be honest, like I said earlier, I'm actually for an intervention in Syria.

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

 

Of course there are extremists among the ranks of the rebels. But don't paint things black and white. There are also sincere democratic movements. Regardless of the incident of chemical weaponry, he's a dictator who has been brutally oppressing his own countrymen. Beyond all doubt, destroying Assad's air force and artillery would be a service to Syria's population. The US has but a limit on this operation to 60 days, I think 30 or 40 might be enough.

 

Plus, for Sannom: Qatar is very likely not supporting Sunni extremists, but most likely a movement resembling the FJP from Egypt or Turkey's AKP.

 

Didn't see much people here painting things black and white until your post. 

 

Evil dictator Assad against sincere freedom loving democratic movement of the FSA and its allies. I was told they'll be organizing a Gay parade in support to their homosexual brothers and sisters on the outskirts of Damascus and al-Nusra is holding a convention up north about religious tolerance. Hope they won't be bombed by Assad's air force or artillery.

 

Oh wait, here is a video from the religious tolerance convention by al-Nusra funded by SA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61zo1Zpxe4 (I'm sure they're chanting Obama, not Osama) 

 

What are you talking about? I know perfectly well which movements exist among the rebels. How am I painting things black and white?

 

By the way, a significant part of the really extreme groups are really foreign jihadis. This has been asserted both by Assad's media and Western journalists.

 

 

Obama has proven earlier his common sense in military matters during the Libyan civil war (as opposed to the military and financial fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm all for a similar intervention in Syria. It's just all too bad that he does not seem to actively seek the approval of the UN, in this case Russia and China.

Do you really think that it's possible to get the 'go ahead' from Russia or China?

There is no evidence in the world that could convince these countries.

 

Russia - doubtful, China - possible. Really, I am sure there is some concession Obama could make which would get them on his side. This is all under the assumption that the US is not in this to spite Russia's interests in the region.

[Zoraptor]

It's a conspiracy theory if the only thing you can provide by way of evidence is "X wants Y. Y happens, therefore X made it happen." That's simply not a rational way to perceive any sort of reality. Let alone geopolitics.

Assad wants to win. Gas happens, therefore Assad made it happen. That, in a nutshell, is the west's argument*. It just happens to ignore that if Assad wants to win the one thing he must avoid is having the US become the rebel's air force. At least Israel/ Qatar/ Saudi/ Lizardmen did it arguments are logically consistent, so far as they go. Doing something obviously counter productive and illogical though?

 

*Everything else in their approach is equivalent to that of Iraq in 2003 and as reliable, same hyping of intercepts (failed in Iraq), same hyping of human intelligence (like Curvevall, who just told them what they wanted to hear and what would get him paid), same hyping of satellite imagery, all stuff that conclusively failed with respect to Iraq, and all stuff that we cannot be allowed to see as primary sources, only as politically shaped and melded statements, like last time. Prior to Iraq they sliced every caveat, every equivocation, every nuance off every intelligence assessment to make the case for war and we have zero way of knowing if that is not exactly what is happening now. That a clear majority of people do not appear to be drinking the kool aid this time gives my cold cynical heart some vague glimmering of hope for humanity.

 

Is that syrianhr.net or syrianhr.org?  Do you have a link that supports the alleged funding by MI6?  Not suggesting you are wrong, just want some clarification.

syrianhr.com? Clarification link and you can check the NYT link as well if that's too biased one way. It certainly isn't, uh, certain, that it is the UK funding him- hence, allegedly- but he lives there and it is exactly the sort of project foreign intelligence branches like the CIA/ MI6/ SVR fund all the time against their enemies.

 

There are also sincere democratic movements.

 

While certainly true sincere democratic movements tend to get marginalised in wartime, even in the west most of the anti democratic measures that have been taken recently have been dressed up in the rhetoric of war. I'd go back to the Spanish Civil War comparison, where there were plenty of sincere democrats, but they got marginalised by the more extreme groups (Falange/ Fascists; Communists) who had better troops, better training, better support and had the 'moral clarity' to push their vision and ideology against nominal friends as well as enemies. And when it comes to moral clarity the typical hard jihadi makes Generalissimo Francisco Franco look like an all inclusive chardonnay socialist.

 

Plus, for Sannom: Qatar is very likely not supporting Sunni extremists, but most likely a movement resembling the FJP from Egypt or Turkey's AKP.

They'd probably like to support the Syrian MB, but it really is a shadow of its former self and far weaker than their Egyptian, er, brethren. I would tend to classify them as 'marginal' extremists since they're fundamentally though not absolutely fundamentalist islamist, but they certainly aren't as extreme as some other players and it all depends on where you draw the line classifying extremism.

[kgambit]

 

Is that syrianhr.net or syrianhr.org?  Do you have a link that supports the alleged funding by MI6?  Not suggesting you are wrong, just want some clarification.

 

syrianhr.com? Clarification link and you can check the NYT link as well if that's too biased one way. It certainly isn't, uh, certain, that it is the UK funding him- hence, allegedly- but he lives there and it is exactly the sort of project foreign intelligence branches like the CIA/ MI6/ SVR fund all the time against their enemies.

 

 

Thanks for the link.  That is the SOHR site I was thinking of but wasn't sure since there is a splinter organization that claims the same name.   According to the NYT article, Rami Abdul Rahman actually has a staff of 200+ so it's not strictly a one man operation.  (Depending on whether you believe him of course)   I was mainly interested in the MI6 funding allegation.  

 

I would question whether the claim of his one-sided bias is totally accurate.    This is from the NYT article:

 

He has been called a tool of the Qatari government, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Central Intelligence Agency and Rifaat al-Assad, the exiled uncle of Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, among others. The Syrian government and even some rebels have accused him of treachery.

 

“Rami’s objectivity is killing us,” said Manhal Bareesh, an activist from Saraqib who knew him before the war. But he and other activists in Syria credit him with working hard to document all the cases, and not hesitating to document potential war crimes.

 

 

Again, thanks for the link.   Much appreciated.  FWIW I definitely preferred the NYT link. 

Edited September 5, 2013 by kgambit

[Guard Dog]

 

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

 

WWII was a whole different story. We were attacked. Prior to that there was not much interest in involving ourselves in what was seen as a purely European affair. But then again nobody really knew Hitler was busy exterminating an entire race either. That might have shifted sentiment if it was known.

 

WWI was a good example of a bad intervention. I could easily make the case they US involvement did nothing for us and may have actually made things worse. Korea and the Gulf War were also good interventions because we were defending an ally from an invasion. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, now this were all expensive mistakes from which nothing good came on our part.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Everyday I see more and more evidence that the single wisest foreign policy decision the US ever made was the Monroe Doctrine. It's been all downhill since we abandoned it.

I disagree. WWII allowed us to gain the military and technological advances that put us at the top of the food chain.

 

WWII was a whole different story. We were attacked. Prior to that there was not much interest in involving ourselves in what was seen as a purely European affair. But then again nobody really knew Hitler was busy exterminating an entire race either. That might have shifted sentiment if it was known.

 

WWI was a good example of a bad intervention. I could easily make the case they US involvement did nothing for us and may have actually made things worse. Korea and the Gulf War were also good interventions because we were defending an ally from an invasion. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, now this were all expensive mistakes from which nothing good came on our part.

 

 

The USA has had to intervene in many conflicts even if they weren't directly threatened but it was in there national interest. There were many proxy wars fought during the Cold War against the USSR that eventually led to the collapse and bankruptcy of the USSR. So even though you may see it as the USA didn't have to get involved in fact it did as it was part of a long term strategy. Almost all the conflicts you mention have the same reason for the USA intervening and do make sense