Philly, We fight fair wars. If we wanted to we could drop a few nukes and be the last man standing. No other country has the capabilities we do.
-
Comment -
The Russians have no military....only a few old nukes from the cold-war days....they can't fight either....the afgans kicked their asses...they are all bluff.Comment -
What is there to accomplish in Syria?
Best case we get regime change but then what?
What happens if someone worse gets in?
They're in the middle of an Islamic civil war. Let them handle it, it's none of our business.
Russia has warned us, numerous times now. You can only poke a sleeping bear so much until it wakes up and kills you.Comment -
there are 2 key points in Syria
1. protect Israel from Iran and Hezbollah because they are all in it in Syria
2. the road to Damascus ends in Tehran because it's all about gas from Mediteranean sea. They want to make very soon a pipeline between Iran and Syria through Iraq with the help of China and Russia. Qatar and Saudi Arabia don't want that, they have their own project for such a pipeline so they could get the gas and export it to Europe. Plus, if you stop Iran taking the gas through Syria, you also affect Gazprom the big dominant Russian company in the business.
I don't think it's about regime change because history has proved recently that doesn't go so well, especially in Syria where the sectarian divide is so big and ultimately aggressive. If Asaad goes down, the chaos will be even bigger with all these groups fighting each other for power, some of them terrorists, but Saudi Arabia and Quatar will love it. So will Israel.
The whole chem attack thing stinks. Asaad had advantage in the war. He was winning. His army was killing hundreds every week, why would he use chems to kill 1500, most of them civilians in the exact day the UN chem inspectors were there. There is no sense in that. No strategical advantage, no logic. They have military advisors from Russia, helping Asaad regime. They are not stupid. I don't think they would have done it knowing that it will be a crossing of the red line and they could be bombed by US.
Most likely that Saudi Arabia provided the chems to some mercenaries that were well paid to do the attacks so that Americans would cripple Asaad forces for crossing the red line.Comment -
So your rationale for military intervention in Syria is 1. Israel and 2. A gas pipeline.
Sorry, but those reasons are not good enough.
Fukk Israel. Their problems should be theirs, not ours. Let alone using American military to fight their enemies for them. Enough with this nonsense.
Fukk the military industrial complex and it's frontmen like John McCain.
These cokksukkers aren't going to be happy until the US has been obliterated off the map.
How long do you think the world is just going to sit and stand by while the US conducts it's power grabs?
We can't detect Chinese or Russian Subs. That is a fact that should be well worth remembering.Comment -
It's not my rationale. I know those reasons were not good enough, but for some it might be.
Besides the penetrating parts, I agree with your post.
Another theory is that Obama might go for action because of the chem red line, but the secret services might lie about the evidence of the chem attack because someone with a bigger agenda is pushing them to do it just like it happened with the lies that convinced Bush and Blair to go in Iraq.
This reminds me of a saying: "Can't trust the intelligence services. They get payed to spy on people "
Comment -
wait for the action
then expect the unexpectedComment -
What the hell is there left to attack?
Comment -
US could find itself at war with Russia over Syria: Mark Glenn
Press TV has conducted an interview with Mark Glenn, the Crescent & Cross Solidarity Movement in Idaho, about Syria and the upcoming US Congress vote for war on the country.
The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: The United States speaks of teaching Syria a lesson to hold it accountable for what it claims is chemical weapons use by the administration of Bashar al-Assad. Why isn’t there a case for America to be held accountable for the WMD’s it has used in over half a century?
Glenn: Absolutely. Leave it to the United States to utter such a completely hypocritical statement that another country another power has to be held accountable for using the same kinds of weapons or being accused of using the same kinds of weapons that the United States has literally been using now for 20 years; and not just the United States, but Israel as well.
Where are all the tears for the children of Gaza who were incinerated with banned weapons, just as Barack Obama stated in one of his recent press conferences, that the presidency of Bashar al-Assad has used banned weapons?
Where are all these tears, where are all these war preparation to be used against Israel for what Israel did during Operation Cast Lead where it killed several hundred children - it incinerated them with banned white phosphorous. So, as I said, leave it to the United States to utter such a hypocritical statement and to maintain such a hypocritical position as this.Press TV: On top of that the US speaks of having evidence of chemicals having been used by the Syrian government. Where is that proof then?
Glenn: Well, the proof is the same proof I suppose that Saddam Hussein was constructing weapons of mass destruction. It’s the kind of proof that they come up with in their own minds in order to justify their war crimes. There will be no such proof. I think back to the time when then Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the United Nations and gave this ridiculous presentation showing these supposed mobile chemical weapons factories that later were proved to be an absolute lie.
That in itself was a war crime the fact that the United States went before the world body and made this case based upon lies that resulted in millions of people being killed.
So we’ll never see the proof if anything happens. This is the way that the West works; this is the way that Israel works, “By way of deception we shall do war”.
Press TV: In light of the fact that the US Congress might approve another war, on Syria, what will the consequences be of an illegal war, which the UN says if it happens without a UN mandate it will be illegal - what will be the consequences of such a war?
Glenn: The consequences would be further discrediting of the United States if we even have any credit left in terms of world opinion.
We would brand ourselves as a completely lawless state that has no respect whatsoever for any law international or whatever; but I would not withdraw the possibility that indeed the Congress will not approve this and Barak Obama will not go to war.
I realize at this time this sounds like a crazy thing when we look at all of the build up to war, but it is entirely possible that this thing has been ‘ginned up’ deliberately so that Barack Obama would be able to make for himself an easy exit out of a very difficult situation.
Look, we are staring down the barrel here against the Russians. It’s very possible that this thing, if it continues in Syria the way that it has been, that we could find ourselves going to war against Russia.
I think Barack Obama is looking for an out and I think it is entirely possible that the jig is up i.e. it’s already been arranged that there will be no attack on Syria and that Obama may go before the world body and more importantly before Benyamin Netanyahu and to say, look we tried, but the rule of law has spoken here and I cannot engage in military activities outside of a Congressional declaration of war. So, I wouldn’t leave this out of the possibility, there is still hope.Press TV: Do you think Obama will take that into consideration of what you’ve said, in his Tuesday night speech?
Glenn: I think that what is going to happen is that Congress is going to have to say ‘no’ to this at which point Obama will have his exit in this very difficult situation where he will be able to go not just in front of the American people, but in front of the entire world and more importantly in front of Benyamin Netanyahu and to say well we tried, but the rule of law has spoken and I think if Congress does not give him the authorization that he appears to be desiring that I don’t think that there will be any attacks on Syria.Comment -
Are these the guys we are trying to help? Syrian rebels killing unarmed POWs:
Comment -
Doesn't look like they need our help with small arms. Check out the AK's.
These guys are 600 years behind the rest of the world. They still stone people, cut off heads and hang.
Make their women cover their faces, beat them whenever and worship a child molester.
Using gas on those fuks is too humane.Comment -
Russia will intervene only via proxy distributing weapons and intelligence. They withdrew a contract to supply Iran with anti-aircraft technology at the behest of America, if action is taking against Syrian I imagine that decision will be reversed.
The biggest threat facing America is themselves. Launching an attack against Iran will result in shed American blood, whilst Iran does not have a comparable military they do posses intelligence on the ground capable of operating as a far more effective terror cell than al-Qaeda. They are more than capable of extracting revenge on American soil.Comment -
all that botox kerry has gotten is affecting his thinking.Comment
