|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Obama Delays Syria Strike
Gives me a bit of hope.
The end of the article had some sick irony though:
Quote: |
The diplomatic maneuvering brought criticism from some Arab countries. “This does not stop the bloodshed in Syria,” said Bahrain’s foreign minister, Sheik Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, after a meeting of gulf states. |
Hello hypocrisy! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leon wrote: |
ersatzredux wrote: |
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high. One of two things is likely to happen.
Either they will sabotage this agreement- by raising the bar of compliance so high that the Syrians can't possibly comply without compromising their security fatally (like Iraq did letting American spies run around their country mapping out all the good bombing targets). Or they will play the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" game so that no degree of assurance will be acceptable. And then of course using the sabotaged agreement as yet another pretext or bombing.
The other easy out for them is to order their proxies to commit another chemical gas attack. This time however they will bomb almost immediately so that their fairy tale does not have a chance to unravel.
The only thing that would prevent an attack would be if this was a bluff all along, one last attempt to force a coup d'etat and putting one of "our bastards" in charge. Considering that an attack may well risk nuclear war with Russia depending on how things pan out, that this is a bluff is a possibility. But that is the only reason it won't happen. The idea that Obama et al actually give two shits about "precedents", or the welfare of the Syrian people, and that an actual good solution would satisfy them, is of course laughable. Fear of nuclear annihilation however? Maybe.
I hope I'm proven wrong about this, but I have my doubts. It's like watching the same movie again and expecting a different ending. |
Nuclear war with Russia, you think that anyone of the great powers cares enough for that? If the actual conflicts of the Cold War didn't cause that what makes you think this posturing will? |
Wesley Clark ordered American troops to fire on Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Quote: |
One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War in June 1999. A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo. Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, who told him "you have transfer of authority" in the area. General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blunt leading the British troops questioned this order[81] and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force. |
Clark under Clinton and Rumsfeld/Cheney under Bush2. Yes, I think they would risk a Total War. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Titus wrote: |
Leon wrote: |
ersatzredux wrote: |
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high. One of two things is likely to happen.
Either they will sabotage this agreement- by raising the bar of compliance so high that the Syrians can't possibly comply without compromising their security fatally (like Iraq did letting American spies run around their country mapping out all the good bombing targets). Or they will play the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" game so that no degree of assurance will be acceptable. And then of course using the sabotaged agreement as yet another pretext or bombing.
The other easy out for them is to order their proxies to commit another chemical gas attack. This time however they will bomb almost immediately so that their fairy tale does not have a chance to unravel.
The only thing that would prevent an attack would be if this was a bluff all along, one last attempt to force a coup d'etat and putting one of "our bastards" in charge. Considering that an attack may well risk nuclear war with Russia depending on how things pan out, that this is a bluff is a possibility. But that is the only reason it won't happen. The idea that Obama et al actually give two shits about "precedents", or the welfare of the Syrian people, and that an actual good solution would satisfy them, is of course laughable. Fear of nuclear annihilation however? Maybe.
I hope I'm proven wrong about this, but I have my doubts. It's like watching the same movie again and expecting a different ending. |
Nuclear war with Russia, you think that anyone of the great powers cares enough for that? If the actual conflicts of the Cold War didn't cause that what makes you think this posturing will? |
Wesley Clark ordered American troops to fire on Russians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark
Quote: |
One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War in June 1999. A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo. Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, who told him "you have transfer of authority" in the area. General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blunt leading the British troops questioned this order[81] and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force. |
Clark under Clinton and Rumsfeld/Cheney under Bush2. Yes, I think they would risk a Total War. |
Total war is possible, but very unlikely. If we are this hesitant to launch a small scale missile strike into Syria, the chances of us getting into a conflict with Russia over this is vanishingly slim.
As an aside, I knew James Blunt was in the army, but didn't know about this particular episode, I still don't care for the man's music, but in honor of what he did here's his song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofSnsGkops |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Assad makes his own demands
I have to say he's making the Obama administration look dumb. I have to give his regime some credit, although it is likely the Russians who are telling him what to do and say at this point.
edit: fixed link
Last edited by bucheon bum on Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
I'm With You
Joined: 01 Sep 2011
|
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Titus wrote: |
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-still-christian-town-maalula-084558304.html
Quote: |
Jihadists who overran Syria's ancient town of Maalula last week disparaged Christians as "Crusaders" and forced at least one person to convert to Islam at gunpoint, say residents who fled the town. |
American foreign policy is a disaster. |
US Dept. of State is trying to turn the Middle East upside down. Destabilization is the strategy to eventually gaining control of the entire region. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm With You wrote: |
Titus wrote: |
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-still-christian-town-maalula-084558304.html
Quote: |
Jihadists who overran Syria's ancient town of Maalula last week disparaged Christians as "Crusaders" and forced at least one person to convert to Islam at gunpoint, say residents who fled the town. |
American foreign policy is a disaster. |
US Dept. of State is trying to turn the Middle East upside down. Destabilization is the strategy to eventually gaining control of the entire region. |
Where are you getting this? Im open to being convinced, but at this point it sounds foolish. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
How does the "civil rights" ethnic activist ADL conceptualize leadership?:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/12/its-iran-stupid-how-to-guarantee-us-credibility-remains-after-syria-crisis/
Quote: |
It has become conventional wisdom that the roller coaster of American decision-making on the Syria issue has dealt a significant, if not mortal blow, to American credibility and leadership in the world |
ie leadership means !Kill people!!
Also, Syria is the path to Iran, as I've been arguing for 20 pages or so. Foxman and the Civil Rights Organization ADL really, desperately, terribly want Americans to kill Persians:
Quote: |
Iran is the real opportunity to make things right once again. Iran is where American strength and leadership are crucial. |
Dual loyalty would be an incredible improvement. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?hp&_r=1&
Quote: |
U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Secure Syria’s Chemical Arms |
War is averted for now. The Russians and Assad government outplayed the Americans. It is too quick to conclude that the American unipolar moment has passed. Under Obama it has. In a few years we could have another Clinton. She'd put a new spin on things. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
McCain and Graham have already denounced the deal. They were really hoping for another war.
Anyway can't wait to read McCain's op ed piece in Pravda. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am amused that JM went to Pravda.
Pravda is to Russia as NYT is to America. Sounds right! Both leftist papers, both full of regime propaganda.. Though Pravda has toned it down of late. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/09/17/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-so-he-can-aid-syrian-rebels/
Quote: |
The Obama administration promises over and over again they are only sending arms to secular, freedom-loving Syrian rebels, not those Islamic jihadists associated with terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
If that’s true, then why was it necessary for the president to unilaterally waive the federal law prohibiting the supply of lethal aid to terrorist groups? The Washington Examiner:
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad’s regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.
The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.”
Despite claims of a robust “vetting” process rebels must go through to be eligible for U.S. arms, Mother Jones reported last week that the process is shoddy and easily overcome by disparate rebel officers less concerned with Washington’s vetting process and looking to get as many arms as possible. Moreover, a recent study by the defense consultancy corporation IHS Jane’s found that nearly half of the approximately 100,000 rebel fighters are Islamist.
Current and former intelligence officials have repeatedly said it is next to impossible to control who gets arms that are sent into a chaotic civil war like Syria’s. And Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) noted last week that the Obama administration’s arming of Syrian rebels violates the law.
Not anymore, apparently. The president’s power to pick and choose which laws do and do not apply to his administration has succeeded in sweeping this legal problem under the rug. On the other hand, it’s not so great for PR if you have to exempt yourself from laws that ban support for terrorists. |
I don't believe the American people would support this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Between not getting a war in Syria and now Iran the Israeli lobby has had a bad week. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ersatzredux
Joined: 15 Dec 2007 Location: Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
|
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This from Jane's Defence Weekly:
Quote: |
Free Syrian Army (FSA) units are receiving intensive training from US Marine Corps personnel in Saudi Arabia, a senior FSA source has told IHS Jane's .
The source said the United States and Saudi Arabia have agreed to train around 1,500 insurgents. The programme began a few months ago and most of the personnel will be trained by the end of 2013.
The courses last for 100 days and include fighting in built up areas (FIBUA). The most recent intake that arrived from Jordan on 13 October consists of around 40% from insurgent groups operating inside Syria, with the rest recruited from refugees in neighbouring countries. |
http://www.janes.com/article/28498/training-of-syrian-insurgents-steps-up-in-saudi-arabia
Another batch of mercenaries trained in terrorist tactics on the way. Oops, sorry, I meant to say rebels. Recruited from the most desperate and least scrupulous elements of the diaspora (and you can be sure there are more than a few honorary Syrians in that number) bought and paid for (quite well) by Saudi Arabia, and trained by the U.S. But it is a moral and democratic popular resistance of course.
Demonstrates just how sincere the Americans are in "stopping the bloodshed". That's the last thing they want. I think the Russians and Chinese better keep their ships handy..This ain't over yet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|