A Possible 'Syrian War'

[WinePusher]

The United States believes that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians. This has led many in the public to believe that the United States will intervene militarily in Syria.

1) Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

[marketandchurch]

I think your larger point of reference is the world, if I expanded it to mean that, I only mean the middle east, which is the area I study, and "the world" to me. If Israel isn't nuked in a few months, I will be living there, working with people in lebanon, and if I'm lucky enough, studying in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.

There is no way one can argue that he hasn't done an apology tour with the Arab/MiddleEast/Muslim world.

[marketandchurch]

All I see in your post is a lot of opining about 'leftists' that does not seem to even be based on what leftists, however defined, actually believe. It looks like one huge straw man.

Pick a point and we'll tear it apart.

[Choir Loft]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Winepusher wrote to Darius -
I see you're drawn to conspiracy theories. For the record, there is no evidence that the Syrian rebels deployed chemical weapons. There is only speculation on the part of conspiracy theorists and 'Jesse Ventura' types like yourself. And even if the Syrian rebels did deploy chemical weapons it would be drastically different from the Syrian national government using chemical weapons to gas its own civilians.

No evidence that Syrian rebels deployed chemical weapons against the Syrian civilian population? There is 'evidence' submitted by the Russians that the west (US UK & France) exchanged memos on doing this ON BEHALF OF of the rebels back in January. It was supposed to look as though the Syrian army did it.

The evidence is in the form of intercepted messages - the same sort of 'evidence' the US government recently used to close its embassies world wide. The most recent information stated that the Syrian army HAD released poison gas was issued several hours BEFORE the incident.

The bottom line is that the Iraq WMD lie is being woven again. The world and the American people are supposed to swallow these lies whole without intense corroboration and scrutiny....and hard evidence that EITHER the Syrian army or the rebels used the stuff. I note that once again the US administration is making a statement and is 'witholding' the 'real' evidence.

Talk about conspiracy theories should be limited to the source - the United States government.

Accusing a poster of being a conspiracy theorist is tantamount to calling him a liar. You sound like an apologist for the US intelligence community rather than a seeker of truth.

In either case, the situation is internal to Syria and the US has no moral or legal duty to insinuate itself into the situation. Unfortunately since the US and its western allies CREATED the situation in the first place, we will not retract our interests at this time. More deaths will be recorded and this time it will be at the hands of the US military.

US involvement is wrong no matter how you argue the point.

IF GOD DOES NOT JUDGE AMERICA HE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[WinePusher]

No evidence that Syrian rebels deployed chemical weapons against the Syrian civilian population?

There is 'evidence' submitted by the Russians that the west (US UK & France) exchanged memos on doing this ON BEHALF OF of the rebels back in January. It was supposed to look as though the Syrian army did it.

Great, another conspiracy theory. Keep them coming. Your conspiracy theory asserts that NATO used chemical weapons on civilians and then proceeded to FRAME the Syrian government for the crime. Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We have a UN inspection which confirms that chemical weapons were used by Assad. Do I need to repeat that? We have a UN, not a US or NATO inspection, a UN inspection that confirms it.

And have you noticed that all your little conspiracy theory's have one thing in common? The United States is always culpable in all your made up conspiracy theories. All the 9/11 conspiracy theories assert that it was the United States government that brought down the twin towers and now we have another conspiracy theory that asserts that the United States used chemical weapons in order to frame Assad and provide a pretense in order to 'invade' Syria.

I'll never understand how educated people can be drawn to absurd conspiracy theories.

The bottom line is that the Iraq WMD lie is being woven again. The world and the American people are supposed to swallow these lies whole without intense corroboration and scrutiny....and hard evidence that EITHER the Syrian army or the rebels used the stuff. I note that once again the US administration is making a statement and is 'witholding' the 'real' evidence.

What Iraqi WMD lie? Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs in his disposal and USED WMDs on his population. Yes, it turns out there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs has the intelligence community had claimed but there were WMDs nonetheless.

Talk about conspiracy theories should be limited to the source - the United States government.

Yes, the United States government is the perpetrator of all evils in the world.

Accusing a poster of being a conspiracy theorist is tantamount to calling him a liar. You sound like an apologist for the US intelligence community rather than a seeker of truth.

Oh please, you really think you yourself are a 'seeker of truth?' Being drawn to conspiracy theories doesn't make you a 'seeker of truth.' The two main things that constitute a conspiracy theory: a small number of people cling to a belief that runs contrary to the facts and evidence.

In either case, the situation is internal to Syria and the US has no moral or legal duty to insinuate itself into the situation. Unfortunately since the US and its western allies CREATED the situation in the first place, we will not retract our interests at this time. More deaths will be recorded and this time it will be at the hands of the US military.

Yes, it is internal and the United States shouldn't financially or militarily support either side. However, the evidence shows that Assad gased his own people and there are international laws that prohibit this. If these laws are to have any meaning then Assad must be punished.

[Choir Loft]

Great, another conspiracy theory. Keep them coming. Your conspiracy theory asserts that NATO used chemical weapons on civilians and then proceeded to FRAME the Syrian government for the crime. Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. We have a UN inspection which confirms that chemical weapons were used by Assad. Do I need to repeat that? We have a UN, not a US or NATO inspection, a UN inspection that confirms it.

Yes, in fact you DO need to repeat it. And when you do, please try to refrain from misquoting the statements of another. I never stated, nor do I believe that NATO had anything to do with chemical weapons discharges in Syria or anywhere else. It was actually an operation conducted by the joint American-British intelligence community.

In fact - there are no FACTS to support the 'conspiracy theory' that the Syrians used chemical weapons at all. The UN inspection team has completed their work and as of this writing.....

1) Have not released their conclusions to the general public
2) US government has stated that it will not release evidence to the public

All any of us are left with is innuendo (American lies, not Italian suppositories).

You, however, refuse to accept the idea that America is anything but a shiny Disney-ish standard of right and good throughout the world. You have believed the greatest conspiracy theory of all - that America is always right all the time.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the greatest crime of all - unjust and illegal war waged by America upon foreign governments. According to the constitution, the United States government is prohibited from acts of war unless a declaration of war is passed by congress. War in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and all the rest including Viet Nam and Korea were all ILLEGAL by the definition of our own law.

However, many lawless individuals like to make their own law and precedent to justify evil. In America the National Security Act of 1947 illegally transferred constitutional authority for making war from congress to POTUS. It also established the CIA. (Was this coincidental or by design?)

In 1973 the War Powers Act sought to restrict POTUS authority, but only succeeded in creating another loophole. Mr. Obama repeatedly ignored the 1973 law during his first term and is about to do so again.

Legal precedent is not sufficient to justify illegal governmental actions.

You can fuss all you want and call everyone a liar who questions the motivations and methods of the US government extremists, but the fact is that it is no longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is fascist in nature and gaining speed toward autocracy daily.

The military-industrial complex is in charge today, not the people.(*)

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) The term 'military-industrial complex' was first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower during his farewell address to the nation in January of 1960. In his address he warned the American people against the dangers of advancing fascism. Despite his expertise on the matter, nobody took him seriously. As of this day, they still don't.

PS
Those who believe that 9/11 was NOT an act of barbarism perpetuated by elements of the US government upon its own people - cannot logically explain certain key issues.
- What caused the fall of WTC#7? It was not struck by debris, yet it fell. Coincidence?
- Why was NO aircraft debris ever discovered at the Pentagon site or the Shanksville site? Coincidence?
- Why do the events of 9/11 and 10/26/2001 so closely parallel the Reichstag Fire and the Enabling act of 1933? Coincidence?
- Why did the US intelligence community and VP Cheney obstruct a non-partisan congressional investigation of the events of 9/11? In any normal criminal investigation this act would otherwise be considered criminal all by itself. Coincidence?
- Why were arab terrorists that participated in 9/11 actually living in the home of FBI agents as their guests? Coincidence?

These last two items are verified by the congressional committee that investigated events and persons involved in 9/11. (source; INTELLIGENCE MATTERS by Senator Bob Graham)

It is not internet rumor and it is not supermarket tabloid gibberish. It is fact that cannot be obliterated by those who accuse everyone from US Senators to the man in the street as being insane conspiracy theorists.

Ask serious questions about the participation of the US government in these and other crimes and you will NOT get serious answers without being called a conspiracy theorist. Coincidence?

[nursebenjamin]

The bottom line is that the Iraq WMD lie is being woven again. The world and the American people are supposed to swallow these lies whole without intense corroboration and scrutiny....and hard evidence that EITHER the Syrian army or the rebels used the stuff. I note that once again the US administration is making a statement and is 'witholding' the 'real' evidence.

What Iraqi WMD lie? Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs in his disposal and USED WMDs on his population. Yes, it turns out there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs has the intelligence community had claimed but there were WMDs nonetheless.

The issue is not whether Iraq had WMDs in the past. Everyone knows that Iraq possessed chemical weapons because the US government still has the receipts. The CIA actually helped Saddam gas Iran and the Kurds.

The issue is whether Iraq had WMDs in 2002 when the Bush administration was trying to sell an Iraq War to the American public. Rumsfeld was certain where the WMDs were located, “They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north.� We were lead to believe that without a war in Iraq, we would soon see mushrooms clouds over American cities.

The stockpiles of WMDs that the Bush Administration said the Iraq had in 2002 were non-existent.

[nursebenjamin]

Should the United States be involved at all in Syria? If so, why and to what extent?

Absolutely not. If the United Nations decides to take action against Syria, then we can decide at that time how to participate.

Syria's civil war is not America's problem. Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal; should he ever leave Syria, he should be arrested and tried as such.

[Goat]

The bottom line is that the Iraq WMD lie is being woven again. The world and the American people are supposed to swallow these lies whole without intense corroboration and scrutiny....and hard evidence that EITHER the Syrian army or the rebels used the stuff. I note that once again the US administration is making a statement and is 'witholding' the 'real' evidence.

What Iraqi WMD lie? Saddam Hussein HAD WMDs in his disposal and USED WMDs on his population. Yes, it turns out there were no huge stockpiles of WMDs has the intelligence community had claimed but there were WMDs nonetheless.

The issue is not whether Iraq had WMDs in the past. Everyone knows that Iraq possessed chemical weapons because the US government still has the receipts. The CIA actually helped Saddam gas Iran and the Kurds.

The issue is whether Iraq had WMDs in 2002 when the Bush administration was trying to sell an Iraq War to the American public. Rumsfeld was certain where the WMDs were located, “They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north.� We were lead to believe that without a war in Iraq, we would soon see mushrooms clouds over American cities.

The stockpiles of WMDs that the Bush Administration said the Iraq had in 2002 were non-existent.

In my opinion, when it comes to Iraq, it shouldn't have mattered one way or another. There are plenty of countries that have WMD, and we don't strike out at them. Bush was thinking of invading iraq from square one, right at 9/11.. no matter what.

That was just an excuse to sell the public.

We shouldn't have gone in, even if he had WMD...

[micatala]

Please correct me if I missed something, but is there anything in this post that actually quotes or refers to exactly what Obama said on this alleged apology tour?


Have you ever actually heard, in their entirety, the speeches that some say are part of this alleged tour?



All I see in your post is a lot of opining about 'leftists' that does not seem to even be based on what leftists, however defined, actually believe. It looks like one huge straw man.


I see NO connection at all to the accusations you leveled at Obama.

Is there any connection?


Not speculation about what Obama thinks, or how he might be similar to some other leftist, but a specific, documented connetion.


Maybe one exists. I have yet to see it.

micatala, Obama starts outright by declaring that America needs to listen instead of dictating, in his first interview to the Arab world. You don't air their grievances unless you are giving legitimacy to them. That is an indirect apology. We both listen and dictate, but you don't acknowledge a weakness or a misgiving, because they don't hear it in the same way you and I understand it as such.

Please quote where he says what you are saying he says. Then we can get into parsing the interpretations.

I do notice you are already backing away from the original claim by calling this an 'indirect apology.' Maybe that is a fair characterization, but I think we need to see the actual words before making that determination.

Benghazi came up and they ran a BS cover story that said that a video was responsible for a preplanned 9/11 celebration/riot in Benghazi.

Well, first, Benghazi happened some number of years after the alleged apology tour. How is this relevant to the original claim?

Secondly, I will point out that there is really no question that the video was mentioned as a motivating factor by protestors in Egypt, Tunisia, and a whole host of other places. The fact that the Benghazi attack happened in conjunction with these other events is a pretty good indication that the same motivation was likely in play there. So, it is ludicrous to call that original story, well, I won't repeat your phraseology.

Secondly, using the word 'cover' begs the question, cover for what? Are you suggesting members' of the Administration were involved in blowing up our own consulate, or killing our own personnel?

The use of the video as a cop out to play up that Libertarian/Leftist foreign policy assumption that "we make them what they are," or in other words, we are responsible for their hostility.

Well, this is still irrelevant to what you previously posted and the allegations of apologies. It is really nothing more than a subjective judgment spun on the basis of a narrative that is highly speculative at best.


The fallacy here is that you seem to think that acknowledging the facts regarding incidents where we have acted against the interests of people in other countries, including subverting their democracies, equates to absolving those people from all responsibility for their actions.

Massive false dichotomy.

One can certainly explain why a criminal got into the behavior patterns he or she did, and acknowledge that society had some role in contributing to the person getting into those patterns and still throw the person in jail for stealing or murdering. "Leftists" do this all the time.

It is a Leftist narrative,

No, it is a RIGHTIST narrative about the left. It is a huge straw man and based on a number of other fallacies including the false dichotomy noted above.

and Obama even called on Americans to temper their our free speech as to not incite hatred, essentially giving legitimacy to their grievances and perpetuating that "We make them the way they are" myth. That is an apology. You don't air the grievances and acknowledge misdoings through this indirect apology.

I am willing to address this, but again, let's have a direct quote that you are basing this on.

Following this logic of "We make them the way they are," Obama apologized on behalf of desecration of Koran's.

Please give the quote. Please provide evidence Obama believes "We make them the way they are."

You apologize for nothing, and you deny everything, and accuse the other of making up myths to delegitimize you. That resonates with an honor culture, in this part of the world. Not airing their grievances and giving them legitimacy, justifying their reaction as having been caused by us. Like this: That's how Obama should only talk in this part of the world. Lie if you have to, because honor, your name, and blood matter most and he should not not be giving then anything to work with.

So, I am to take the ravings of a guy defending the humanity of the Syrian Army as evidence of something? This is supposed to be indicative of something about Obama??



I think the main issue I have is you seem to think Obama should be responsible for the reactions of every crazy or nationalistic or fanatical Islamist. No one, not Bush, Not McCain, not Obama, can control the unreasonableness of radicals. We possibly can affect the perceptions of the more reasonable and moderate elements in the Islamic World.



So, again, I'll be willing to debate your claims, but I want to see the man's own words. Not what some blogger or Al-Jazeera talking head is claiming about what Obama thinks or says, what the horse himself says.



Secondly, since you seem to be claiming this alleged 'apology tour' and other alleged statements have somehow influenced radicals in the Middle-East to terrorism or whatever else, do you have any evidence of that? Do you have any evidence that what Obama did say, whether you call it an apology or not, has made us less safer than if he would not have said it?


Any evidence at all?

[micatala]

I think your larger point of reference is the world, if I expanded it to mean that, I only mean the middle east, which is the area I study, and "the world" to me. If Israel isn't nuked in a few months, I will be living there, working with people in lebanon, and if I'm lucky enough, studying in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Jordan.

There is no way one can argue that he hasn't done an apology tour with the Arab/MiddleEast/Muslim world.

If you want to restrict to the Middle East, fine. Show me the alleged apologies. One most certainly CAN argue the point, and when you provide some direct evidence of the tour, we can proceed.