Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Insouciant Western People
Posts: 24653
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: The pit of propaganda

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Insouciant Western People » 16 Apr 2018, 12:27

Diamond Dog wrote:
That certainly looks highly convenient, doesn't it?


Convenient for what though? I mean if you're thinking along the lines of there being shadowy ulterior motives for the US/France/UK actions at the weekend, what are they?

I don't see any appetite for a long term engagement in Syria on the agenda of any western government. The signs at the moment (at least for those of us who aren't insane/Jimbo/both) are that the air strikes on the chemical weapons facilities at the weekend were a one-shot retaliatory measure designed to inhibit Assad's capacity to use WMDs, and that Syria and Russia will suck them up, albeit with a fair amount of face-saving bluster.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 13:12

Diamond Dog wrote:
*FRESH 'N' SEXY* wrote:If you believe the official line (and in this case I don't see why not) .............

And we still don't know what exactly Assad is responsible for. I have a friend whose parents do diplomatic work in Syria and she tells me he (Assad) is fine and all the accusations are fabricated by the West.


So which one is it then?


Do you believe it wasn't the Syrian government?

The US, the UK and France says it's them. Russia says it was staged by the UK.

Who do you believe?
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14970
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Jimbo » 16 Apr 2018, 13:14

Insouciant Western People wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
That certainly looks highly convenient, doesn't it?


Convenient for what though? I mean if you're thinking along the lines of there being shadowy ulterior motives for the US/France/UK actions at the weekend, what are they?

I don't see any appetite for a long term engagement in Syria on the agenda of any western government. The signs at the moment (at least for those of us who aren't insane/Jimbo/both) are that the air strikes on the chemical weapons facilities at the weekend were a one-shot retaliatory measure designed to inhibit Assad's capacity to use WMDs, and that Syria and Russia will suck them up, albeit with a fair amount of face-saving bluster.


Why then the hunger for our "long term engagement" in Afghanistan and Iraq not to mention having more bases around the world than there are nations.

The big reason the west is interested in Syria, like in Iraq, like in Libya, like in Afghanistan - and ultimately Iran is to have control of the natural resources including where our - not Russia's - pipe-lines will run. The security of Israel figures into the equation as well. If you think we are there to save lives consider the million or so killed in our efforts to save them in Iraq and Libya. Syria has lots of oil especially in the Kurdish region conveniently located near our troops now. The latest (like the last few) gas attack(s) was a false flag operation. There probably was no gas at all this time judging from photos of unprotected personnel wandering around scene of the crime. See, according to international law (UN), intervention is only allowed when another country breaks international laws (not "norms"). Since Syria has broken no law, i.e. attacked outside its borders, we created these "chemical weapon" incidents. It just so happens that breaking the chemical weapon ban is one of the few rules for which intervention is allowed.
Gadfly

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65821
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Diamond Dog » 16 Apr 2018, 13:26

Goat Boy wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
*FRESH 'N' SEXY* wrote:If you believe the official line (and in this case I don't see why not) .............

And we still don't know what exactly Assad is responsible for. I have a friend whose parents do diplomatic work in Syria and she tells me he (Assad) is fine and all the accusations are fabricated by the West.


So which one is it then?


Do you believe it wasn't the Syrian government?

The US, the UK and France says it's them. Russia says it was staged by the UK.

Who do you believe?


Do you know what - I honestly don't know. I'm being honest.

It seems that the most likely outcome is it was Assad. But I find it rather odd that Macron is persuading Trump to stay in Syria, and - lo and behold- we get a chemical weapons attack a day or two later that justifies Trump staying put. Does that seem just a little too easy for you? You know, I really don't like conspiracy theories anymore than you - but that does sound remarkably convenient. And, to answer Nick, I have no idea why either.... but does it not raise any alarms with you?
In other words an extended look into *******’s head, and it seems to have some pretty good things in it (who among us is totally free of mental garbage?) It’s nice to see that he is confident enough so he can play some blues again,I’d like to hear more.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 13:40

What's the alternative conclusion though?

The UK, the US and France staged these attacks somehow as Russia is claiming? I mean we really are in Jimbo land with that sorta thing. It's easy to see coincidences and causalities and come up with various conclusions, you know?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43778831

After Mr Macron's comments, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: "The US mission has not changed - the president has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible".

But she added that the US was "determined to completely crush" the Islamic State group and prevent its return.

Announcing the strikes in an address to the nation on Friday evening in Washington, Mr Trump insisted: "America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria - under no circumstances."


I dunno. Maybe Macron is overselling the conversation.
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65821
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Diamond Dog » 16 Apr 2018, 15:07

Again, I don't know.

But... I have no time for the claim that because the US, UK & French Govt say it is 'this' then the 'that' that Russia proposes is false. I've been through too many bullshit operations to just believe the 'Western' version of events, that are (later) proven to be palpably untrue, and to have been manipulated to give those Govt's the excuse they needed to do what they originally wanted to do. I'm just naturally dis-inclined to take things at face value especially when the same countries have, in the past, been absolutely proven to have lied to achieve their aims.

Of course, that doesn't immediately make the Russian/Syrian version of events true (which is where Jimbo immediately jumps to) but I'm prepared to listen until something incontrovertible comes along. I've not seen that yet.
In other words an extended look into *******’s head, and it seems to have some pretty good things in it (who among us is totally free of mental garbage?) It’s nice to see that he is confident enough so he can play some blues again,I’d like to hear more.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65821
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Diamond Dog » 16 Apr 2018, 15:10

Goat Boy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43778831

After Mr Macron's comments, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: "The US mission has not changed - the president has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible".

But she added that the US was "determined to completely crush" the Islamic State group and prevent its return.

Announcing the strikes in an address to the nation on Friday evening in Washington, Mr Trump insisted: "America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria - under no circumstances."




How does bombing Assad's chemical weapon capability help crush ISIS?

You know..that's just a weird way to justify staying on in (and bombing ) Syria - to crush ISIS? I would have thought they were polar opposites, aren't they?
In other words an extended look into *******’s head, and it seems to have some pretty good things in it (who among us is totally free of mental garbage?) It’s nice to see that he is confident enough so he can play some blues again,I’d like to hear more.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 15:19

Diamond Dog wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43778831

After Mr Macron's comments, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: "The US mission has not changed - the president has been clear that he wants US forces to come home as quickly as possible".

But she added that the US was "determined to completely crush" the Islamic State group and prevent its return.

Announcing the strikes in an address to the nation on Friday evening in Washington, Mr Trump insisted: "America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria - under no circumstances."




How does bombing Assad's chemical weapon capability help crush ISIS?

You know..that's just a weird way to justify staying on in (and bombing ) Syria - to crush ISIS? I would have thought they were polar opposites, aren't they?


Well one is taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons and the other is fulfilling Trumps promise to defeat ISIS, or something.
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 62492
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby sloopjohnc » 16 Apr 2018, 17:05

Diamond Dog wrote:Speaking in a live TV interview, during which he was grilled on several subjects, Mr Macron said: "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria'. We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."

I don't know. Maybe it's just my Jimbo getting the better of me. But Trump says he's pulling out, Macron persuades him otherwise and .... ten days ago would have been 4th or 5th April (when the conversation took place)... Syria allegedly launches chemical weapons attack on the 7th.... Trump (along with Macron & May) launch attacks a week later.

That certainly looks highly convenient, doesn't it?


Well, from the US end, the attack is loaded with questions. Apparently, a UN inspection team arrived on Thursday and were to give their conclusions on Monday. The attack was on Friday. Why didn't they wait?

In the US, because of Trump's reluctance to criticize Putin, this is seen as a diversion to the Russian investigation by the special counsel.
WG Kaspar wrote:I'm a happy bunny.

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 62492
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby sloopjohnc » 16 Apr 2018, 17:07

Jimbo wrote:
Insouciant Western People wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
That certainly looks highly convenient, doesn't it?


Convenient for what though? I mean if you're thinking along the lines of there being shadowy ulterior motives for the US/France/UK actions at the weekend, what are they?

I don't see any appetite for a long term engagement in Syria on the agenda of any western government. The signs at the moment (at least for those of us who aren't insane/Jimbo/both) are that the air strikes on the chemical weapons facilities at the weekend were a one-shot retaliatory measure designed to inhibit Assad's capacity to use WMDs, and that Syria and Russia will suck them up, albeit with a fair amount of face-saving bluster.


Why then the hunger for our "long term engagement" in Afghanistan and Iraq not to mention having more bases around the world than there are nations.

The big reason the west is interested in Syria, like in Iraq, like in Libya, like in Afghanistan - and ultimately Iran is to have control of the natural resources including where our - not Russia's - pipe-lines will run. The security of Israel figures into the equation as well. If you think we are there to save lives consider the million or so killed in our efforts to save them in Iraq and Libya. Syria has lots of oil especially in the Kurdish region conveniently located near our troops now. The latest (like the last few) gas attack(s) was a false flag operation. There probably was no gas at all this time judging from photos of unprotected personnel wandering around scene of the crime. See, according to international law (UN), intervention is only allowed when another country breaks international laws (not "norms"). Since Syria has broken no law, i.e. attacked outside its borders, we created these "chemical weapon" incidents. It just so happens that breaking the chemical weapon ban is one of the few rules for which intervention is allowed.


Dude, the US has the least reliance on overseas oil than ever before. I don't think it has to do with Syria's oil or pipelines.
WG Kaspar wrote:I'm a happy bunny.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 18:40

Diamond Dog wrote:Again, I don't know.

But... I have no time for the claim that because the US, UK & French Govt say it is 'this' then the 'that' that Russia proposes is false. I've been through too many bullshit operations to just believe the 'Western' version of events, that are (later) proven to be palpably untrue, and to have been manipulated to give those Govt's the excuse they needed to do what they originally wanted to do. I'm just naturally dis-inclined to take things at face value especially when the same countries have, in the past, been absolutely proven to have lied to achieve their aims.

Of course, that doesn't immediately make the Russian/Syrian version of events true (which is where Jimbo immediately jumps to) but I'm prepared to listen until something incontrovertible comes along. I've not seen that yet.


I'm not talking about blind belief here although maybe that wasn't clear. The chemical attack took place as it has before of course. I'm assuming you don't doubt that. The UK, France and the US say it was the Syrian government and I have no reason to doubt them at all in this instance. This is based on evidence, intelligence, eye witness reports and, crucially, clear evidence of the Syrian government using chemical weapons before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack

There is a history there. The Russian foreign minister, however, claims this was staged by the UK which would be risible if it wasn't so grotesque. He's talking about a false flag operation for crying out loud but that's where Russia is at right now, you know? Contemptible.

This is worth a read:

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/syria/article/national-assessment-document-on-chemical-attack-of-7-april-2018-douma-eastern

I understand cynicism but I really don't see any credible alternative scenarios here and I think your bias against the "west" in situations like this is leading you towards that hellish, no-nothing place known as Jimbo land. If you're "prepared to listen" in lieu of "something incontrovertible" then what alternative scenarios would you posit?
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
jimboo
Posts: 6764
Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 17:43
Location: taking a foxy kind of stand

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby jimboo » 16 Apr 2018, 19:04

Diamond Dog wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
So which one is it then?


Do you believe it wasn't the Syrian government?

The US, the UK and France says it's them. Russia says it was staged by the UK.

Who do you believe?


Do you know what - I honestly don't know. I'm being honest.

It seems that the most likely outcome is it was Assad. But I find it rather odd that Macron is persuading Trump to stay in Syria, and - lo and behold- we get a chemical weapons attack a day or two later that justifies Trump staying put. Does that seem just a little too easy for you? You know, I really don't like conspiracy theories anymore than you - but that does sound remarkably convenient. And, to answer Nick, I have no idea why either.... but does it not raise any alarms with you?


Rogue General /Commander acting on his own ?
Goat Boy wrote:Oh, do fuck off, prog boy.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65821
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Diamond Dog » 16 Apr 2018, 19:23

Goat Boy wrote:I understand cynicism but I really don't see any credible alternative scenarios here and I think your bias against the "west" in situations like this is leading you towards that hellish, no-nothing place known as Jimbo land.


I have no bias against "the west". I certainly have no love of the Russians or the Syrians either.

But I have seen so many 'obvious' political scenarios of the past, where your beloved west has outright fabricated evidence, overthrown leaders -and denied it for years, until latter evidence blows the lies away- that you'll excuse me waiting until I'm entirely happy before jumping on the bandwagon. Especially a bandwagon being driven by a pair of utter opportunists such as Trump and May, both of whom are knee deep in shit domestically.
In other words an extended look into *******’s head, and it seems to have some pretty good things in it (who among us is totally free of mental garbage?) It’s nice to see that he is confident enough so he can play some blues again,I’d like to hear more.

User avatar
The Beatles
hounds people off the board
Posts: 17387
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 23:21
Location: pursued by the enraged queen

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby The Beatles » 16 Apr 2018, 19:36

Reasonable.
the Fred Dinenage of bees! wrote:BCB is boring bald men stroking each other's cocks while recommending Alan Parsons Project bootlegs

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 11261
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby The Modernist » 16 Apr 2018, 19:45

Diamond Dog wrote:
Do you know what - I honestly don't know. I'm being honest.

It seems that the most likely outcome is it was Assad. But I find it rather odd that Macron is persuading Trump to stay in Syria, and - lo and behold- we get a chemical weapons attack a day or two later that justifies Trump staying put. Does that seem just a little too easy for you? You know, I really don't like conspiracy theories anymore than you - but that does sound remarkably convenient. And, to answer Nick, I have no idea why either.... but does it not raise any alarms with you?



It's way too much of a jump in logic. Assad has used chemical weapons before -of course it's him. The idea this has been "staged" by the west is nonsense. I'm surprised at you Pete.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 19:51

Diamond Dog wrote:
Goat Boy wrote:I understand cynicism but I really don't see any credible alternative scenarios here and I think your bias against the "west" in situations like this is leading you towards that hellish, no-nothing place known as Jimbo land.


I have no bias against "the west". I certainly have no love of the Russians or the Syrians either.

But I have seen so many 'obvious' political scenarios of the past, where your beloved west has outright fabricated evidence, overthrown leaders -and denied it for years, until latter evidence blows the lies away- that you'll excuse me waiting until I'm entirely happy before jumping on the bandwagon.


I have no bias against the "West", I am completely objective, but I'll happily lump all of the countries that make up the West together as if they are one. I presume by "West" you mean us and America and the frogs of course but I'm delighted that we represent all those other guys.

I'm not jumping on the bandwagon but I do think there is an argument given the context. Obviously I have misgivings as we all do.

Especially a bandwagon being driven by a pair of utter opportunists such as Trump and May, both of whom are knee deep in shit domestically.


War! Huh, yeah, what is good for?!

Distracting from domestic troubles!

Etc.

Jimbo land has free entry but you'll never leave. I've heard there's a really good discussion about false flag operations. I look forward to reading about those credible alternative scenarios you would be prepared to listen to.
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 19:55

The Modernist wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:
Do you know what - I honestly don't know. I'm being honest.

It seems that the most likely outcome is it was Assad. But I find it rather odd that Macron is persuading Trump to stay in Syria, and - lo and behold- we get a chemical weapons attack a day or two later that justifies Trump staying put. Does that seem just a little too easy for you? You know, I really don't like conspiracy theories anymore than you - but that does sound remarkably convenient. And, to answer Nick, I have no idea why either.... but does it not raise any alarms with you?


It's way too much of a jump in logic. Assad has used chemical weapons before -of course it's him. The idea this has been "staged" by the west is nonsense. I'm surprised at you Pete.


The Russians have proof dontcha know. I heard about it on RT news
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14970
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Jimbo » 16 Apr 2018, 20:06

http://21stcenturywire.com/2018/04/16/l ... rs-arrive/

The reporter is there, in Syria. Has been for years. Speaks Arabic.

Why would Assad gas his own citizens just as he's on the edge of victory? The west, its governments and media, are lying.
Gadfly

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 31954
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 20:08

*FRESH 'N' SEXY* wrote:Reasonable.


Nobody is jumping on bangwagons with a shit eating grin on their face, you know?

Considering the use of chemical weapons I do think there is an argument for doing something a lot more than using harsh language. Yes, we can all point out hypocrisies, inconsistencies in foreign policy but, you know? There are lines.

Also given the British and Americans public reaction to the Iraq war and intervention in the middle east (Trump run on being more isolationist than Clinton) I wouldn't even say it's the kind of decision that plays that well with the electorate these days anyway.

I don't sense any appetite for anything more than this from the public.
LeBaron wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I will read your link but it seems you only read my poor synopsis and not the article, otherwise you''d say more than just insult my cred


I read the article, which was nonsense.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 14970
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Should the West have intervened against Syria in 2013?

Postby Jimbo » 16 Apr 2018, 20:09

Gadfly