Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
January 30, 2025, 10:33 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 29, 2025, 12:18 PM

New Britain
January 29, 2025, 11:40 AM

Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: What should America do in Syria?

 (Read 12362 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #30 - January 24, 2014, 08:04 AM

    In the spirit of Franz Fanon the people must fight for their rights and rise up against their oppressors. However, he is as not well known as Gandhi who fought the oppressors utilising remarkably less violent means - satyagraha (soul force). I think the situation may, unfortunately, call for a mixture of the two approaches. The Islamic culture is one that obligates violence against violence. Though the legacy of khan ghaffar khan may inspire some Muslims to seek a peaceful resolution. The will of the masses wil no doubt be drowned out and manipulated by the puppet masters who desire power such as the Islamists and the Assadists.

    If it's worth fighting for then fight. If it's worth dying for then die for it.

    But who am I to argue? One who is too afraid to admit to the world that he is no longer Muslim. There is no advice worth taking from cowards when peoples lives are at stake in an oppressive regime. I can hide behind a computer screen but these poor brothers and sisters can not. They are thrust forth into the arms of death or a fate far worse.

    There is no advice you can give, nor any opinion that can be voiced that would make any difference at all. The elite have manoeuvred themselves in positions of power. For them it's a game and we are the pawns.

    I wish, at times, that there was a God that could sweep up the people caught in the midst of these two conflicting egos and love them, care  for them. If only God could, would exist. A nice God. This sort of god should exist.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #31 - January 24, 2014, 01:38 PM

    I think showing something innate at birth is impossible. At birth you can't act on anything, you can't really do anything for yourself. You need to develop to a certain point before anything can be tested.

    Right. So it's impossible to rule out by (empirical evidence) the theory that children learn morality AFTER birth (mostly from their parents).

    Unless you want to brain scans on a new-born in different situations, but again it's not something I see working. But if you have displays of certain things at young ages it lends credit.

    Lending credit is false epistemology.

    Theories can't be lended credit. They can only be falsified/refuted.

    Also brain scans can't tell you what ideas someone has.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #32 - January 24, 2014, 01:46 PM

    But who am I to argue? One who is too afraid to admit to the world that he is no longer Muslim.

    Aren't you part of the problem then? By letting people believe that you are Muslim, aren't you helping propagate the memeplex known as Islam?

    I wrote about this subject (about why ex-muslims don't go public). I posted the essay on this forum just now. Here's the link: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=25652.new#new

    There is no advice you can give, nor any opinion that can be voiced that would make any difference at all. The elite have manoeuvred themselves in positions of power. For them it's a game and we are the pawns.

    But the elite ONLY have power BECAUSE of the pawns (the pawns ideas/beliefs I mean). And the pawns CAN change their minds. The pawns CAN raise their children different than they were raised.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #33 - January 24, 2014, 03:00 PM

    That's right. Why do we hide in the shadows? Why do we not come out in to the light? We fear our own reflections.

    But, in the meantime we must wait for our children to grow, but they will be a minority drowning in the cesspit of savage thought peddled by the elite. It's their children and not our own who we must be concerned about.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #34 - January 24, 2014, 04:02 PM

    Quote
    I think showing something innate at birth is impossible. At birth you can't act on anything, you can't really do anything for yourself. You need to develop to a certain point before anything can be tested.


    Some aspects of our mentality are innate at birth, some aren't.  Cultural perceptions of right and wrong aren't, however.  Altruism however does have some biological basis, since we are a social species.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote
    Yes.. both the cop that takes bribes AND the citizen that gives them, are the problem, not just the cops.


    I don't think you have ever dealt with abusive police officers, or lived in cities known for their legendarily corrupt and abusive cops (which is practically every major US city Tongue).  The biggest problem with cops is the lack of accountability and recourse they face, not monetary bribes (from whom would they be receiving these bribes anyway?), and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that cops can easily get away with cold blooded murder with either a slap on the wrist or a very weak jail sentence.  Some of this is the fault of citizens, as in juries being deferential toward police officers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote
    Zionist Saudi Royal Family Completely Exposed Must Watch


    Not sure why you're posting anti-Semitic videos...

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote
    Damned it you do, damned if you don't.

    yes, its fucked up!


    I've seen this said before, ever since the invasion of Iraq in fact, and even as a kid I found it to be suspect, as some sort of bizarre justification for any action of the United States.  But I've never actually observed it.  In fact everyone I know and everyone in the media I've seen who is against US foreign policy thinks the very idea of the US doing anything on the world stage is evil and never calls for US military action on anything, which is actually something I disagree with (case in point: Libya). 

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote
    Well I am wacko EzraJT., I am   A prophet material.,


    I'm just wondering where you get some of these weird ideas?  It just doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about is all I'm saying.

    Quote
    Really?  well if you and other Americans don't give bribes to cops., how do they become corrupt? 


    Why do you think so one-dimensionally?  This is reminding me of your statement that the Democrats and Republicans have different policies because they have different parties.

    Quote
    You seem to use the words "rape" and "rapist" for US of A quite often.


    Well I've used it once before, so I guess that's "quite often".

    Quote
    So how does it do it?  how America does this raping and how can it get away? can you think of a good reason for  that EzraJT. May be we can teach other nations to RAPE AMERICA and get away with it.. 


    Stop being so petty and childish and try to understand what others say.  Clearly what I was saying was referring to the exploitative policies US foreign policy furthers, which is apparent to everyone in the world but Americans.  All Americans are on top of a global pyramid scheme of exploitation, not just the "1 percent". 

    Quote
    So if there was no America in this damn world,  there would have been no problem in Middle East.  Right??  Did I get that right EzraJT?   I think the other problem is Israel and  the support it gets from America.  What do you think about that?


    There you go with your one-dimensional thinking and judgement calls.  Stop acting like a child.



  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #35 - January 24, 2014, 06:36 PM

    well EzraJT  too much to do too little time but I want to answer why I am  posting anti-Semitic videos.

    Not sure why you're posting anti-Semitic videos...


    well I am THE WORST  anti-Semitic guy that you will ever find on any forum.. I think Israel is a bad country., It should be dismantled .,  What do you say? and what do you think of this tube..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvXfnulloZM

    I am sure you being American.. you know both those guys.. any ways i will answer rest of your post later

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #36 - January 31, 2014, 11:38 PM

    Quote
    well I am THE WORST  anti-Semitic guy that you will ever find on any forum.. I think Israel is a bad country., It should be dismantled .,  What do you say? and what do you think of this tube..


    I have to assume this is meant to be satire, either that or you're a raging bigot...

    Quote
    and what do you think of this tube..


    I think Bill Maher is a dickhead.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #37 - February 01, 2014, 01:15 AM

    I have to assume this is meant to be satire, either that or you're a raging bigot...

    well when it comes to certain issues I am a    raging bigot  EzraJT ., I also throw  some  satire,

    Quote
    I think Bill Maher is a dickhead.

    really..?    Dickhead

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-XfYvmEBK0

    Well I wonder whether  America is filled with Dickheads? or they act like dickheads?? So what % Americans are dickheads??

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #38 - February 01, 2014, 01:18 AM

    Quote
    well when it comes to certain issues I am a    raging bigot  EzraJT ., I also throw  some  satire,


    Which ethnic, religious, etc groups are you bigoted toward?

    Quote
    really..?    Dickhead


    Really.

    Quote
    Well I wonder whether  America is filled with Dickheads? or they act like dickheads?? So what % Americans are dickheads??


    At least 80 percent, and that's being generous.  Btw, why do you constantly post random videos?  The one you just posted, for example, has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
  • Re: What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #39 - February 12, 2014, 08:34 PM

    quote author=Maya link=topic=25644.msg730189#msg730189 date=1390489673]
    America shouldn't do ANYTHING in Syria imo, let them sort it out themselves.  wacko
    [/quote]

    ^Agreed

    I said that!



    This just blows my mind. How do you make a big deal about a dead giraffe in a Copenhagen zoo, and keep whining about  poor rhinos that are being pouched in Africa, and rage because of a video of a French boy torturing his cat, but when it comes to the Syrian children who are being slaughtered every day by the Syrian regime, you don't show any shred of mercy or sympathy? Actually you show worse than that, you call for inaction and leaving the Syrian regime committing one massacre after the other. How could you be so companionate about animals, but in the same time be so ruthless when to comes to a huge human tragedy?
    Is it because Syrians are Arabs and Muslims? I can't find any reasonable explanation other than this. If you have a better explanation then please tell me about it.
    I remember a Bosnian leader who said: if the situation in Bosnia was the opposite, i.e. it's Muslims killing Christians, then the world would have intervened immediately, not after three years of massacres.
    Now I wonder if we, Syrians, were Christians, would you be saying today what you are saying? Would you be saying "stay the fuck out of Syria" or "Let them sort it out themselves"? I don't think so. You would be calling for an immediate action to save poor Syrians
    For a month now the Syrian regime has been air striking the rebel held areas in Aleppo. More than 1800 civilians have been killed. So many gut-wrenching videos and images are coming out of Aleppo every day but the world isn't giving a shit about it, the world is busy with the poor giraffe and poor poached rhinos.
     Here's a fresh example from today's outcome of air stikes against Aleppo. The image shows a father carrying his dead daughter and walking towards the crying mother. For the record today's airstikes against Aleppo resulted in 48 deaths. I wish there was a giraffe among the casualties maybe then the civilized world would get outraged by the Syrian regime's airstrikes and calls for an action to stop that.  

    Everyday such images and videos are surfacing from Aleppo and from different parts of Syria, but the world doesn't give a shit. Maybe because it's just Arabs and Muslims dying.
    Here are two videos of the aftermath of today's Airstrikes on Al-Haidariya district in Aleppo (Warning graphic)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrwtVXeRGi8&feature=youtu.be
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAbQlmgtffg&feature=youtu.be
     
    The US or the Nato can in a matter of hours destroy the entire Syrian fleet and thus end this misery which also resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees who left Aleppo during the last month. but who gives a shit about Syrians?  
    .
    If Obama had called for a military intervention to save the endangered rhinos in Africa, I think the vast majority of the people of the so called civilized west would had supported this move. But when he wanted to carry out a fucking limited strike after the Syrian regime had killed 1400 people in a matter of hours using chemical weapons, most Americans started to bitch about it like an angry street whore, and they went saying "we are not the world's police" "stay the fuck out of Syria" "don't touch our tax paying money". And they started a crusade to pressure the congress men to refuse the proposal. Congress men started to receive thousands of emails and phone calls all day from Americans expressing their refusal for any military intervention. They did this although the horrific pictures of the victims of the attack were all over the news. Videos of Children suffocating to death, tens of small bodies laid on the ground, all this didn't affect the conscience of those Americans who get outraged by the silliest animal abuse. Why? Because those dead children are Muslims. You have to be a white Christian, or an animal somewhere on the planet to deserve the sympathy of the people of the civilized world.
    when you are a Muslim or an African and you are in a huge human tragedy, forget about the civilized west.
    The limited strike that Obama wanted to launch was expected to target mainly the Syrian air fleet. If the strike was carried out then non of todays horrors in Aleppo would be happening. But thanks to the pressure of the compassionate people of Britain and the US, the strike was cancelled.
    Thank you the people of America and UK, because of you Assad is still enjoying the use of war jets against civilians. Assad really loves you and appreciates your help.

    America does nothing, and the preachers start screaming about how they don't care and this and that and use it to further hatred of them. America does something, and the preachers start screaming about how they're just in it for themselves and interfering in muslin business and in muslim land and use it to further hatred of them.

    Damned it you do, damned if you don't.


    Who the hell screamed and bitched when the US intervened in Bonsnia, Kosovo and Libyia??? No one. Cuz the reason behind the intervention in these Muslim countries was to stop the massacres against civilians. Plus the US didn't deploy boots on the ground on those countries. It mainly helped by airstrikes.
    This kind of Muslim protesting was about the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. And as you know these two countries were invaded with thousands of US soldiers, and not for humanitarian reasons. So it was a different story.
    This is why if the US carry out airstrikes against the Syrian regime no Muslims will bitch about it. It's only the westerners who will.

    Mr. Nikolaj, thanks for pointing out Assad's role in strengthening extremism and alqaeda in Syria. You said nice things before about Syria and I really appreciate your sympathy. I wish we had more westerners who think like you do. I LOVE YOU.

      Shit, as I am writing this post, explosions are going off and the doors and windows of my house are trembling. Seems like a mortar shelling nearby. But guess what, we got used to this shit! Thank you civilized world.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #40 - February 12, 2014, 08:40 PM

    Quote
    The US or the Nato can in a matter of hours destroy the entire Syrian fleet and thus end this misery which also resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees who left Aleppo during the last month. but who gives a shit about Syrians? 


    If that's really all they have to do then  they should do it.  Its invasion and regime change that the west is shy of, and not because we don't give a shit about anybody other than giraffes and Christians but because of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #41 - February 12, 2014, 08:46 PM

    I better not say anything.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #42 - February 13, 2014, 12:54 AM

    Saying people don't care because the victims are muslim is quite simply not true. You quoted me saying that action or lack of action will be used to further an agenda, but nowhere did I comment on my personal views. So I'll give them. I think if you have the power to change/affect something for the better, you have a moral duty to act.

    The reason so many are against intervening is that the west is tired of war. We look at the past decade and see a series of failures. We're tired of what seems to be an unwinnable war and don't want to enter another conflict in the region we've failed so much in while we still have fighting going on. I'm not making a personal judgement, I'm stating the feelings behind it. You also have to factor in that the muslim voices in the west have been saying over and over and over and over, after, every protest, every march, every terrorist attack in our cities, the message, for years, has been the same. It's because you're in muslim land. Get out of muslim land. Until you stay out of the affairs of muslims you will never be safe. Over and over and over again. And we're starting to believe it.

    After all this time, after this same repeated message, after so much failure, people honestly think interference on our part will end in tragedy, It doesn't mean people don't care. Syria is in the news almost every day. The pictures and the videos are in our minds. There are aid appeals, donations, agreements to accept refugees, because we do care. We just have no confidence that yet another battle will help.

    My personal feelings on the matter is that if anything (military) is to happen, it has to be a surgical strike. Get in, get the job done (whatever that may be) and get out, maybe a small number remaining for aid. But no one thinks that will be the case.

    Let me ask you what do you think should happen? No fly zones? Sanctions? Soldiers?

    What should be done? And keep in mind if the western military did flex their muscles there would also be civilian casualties. And please don't think our hearts are stone.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #43 - February 14, 2014, 07:25 AM

    Quote
    If Obama had called for a military intervention to save the endangered rhinos in Africa, I think the vast majority of the people of the so called civilized west would had supported this move.


    How would a military venture save rhinos?

    Quote
    Let me ask you what do you think should happen? No fly zones? Sanctions? Soldiers?


    The West doesn't seem to have a good track record when it comes to such actions.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #44 - February 15, 2014, 02:58 AM

    I disagree. I think the no fly zone in Northern Iraq worked beautifully. It is still fulfilling all America's plans for it, too.
    There is an entire generation there now that grew up in a war free pocket. Well, except for Kandil.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #45 - February 16, 2014, 05:59 PM

    Quote
    I disagree. I think the no fly zone in Northern Iraq worked beautifully. It is still fulfilling all America's plans for it, too.
    There is an entire generation there now that grew up in a war free pocket. Well, except for Kandil.


    Well it depends on how you say it "worked".  Did it work to kill millions of Iraqis?  Absolutely.  Did it work to um..., what was the stated purpose?  Bring peace or stop weapons of mass destruction or something?  Well, in that case it worked as well as the subsequent invasion, which is to say not at all.  We got our asses kicked afterwards though, so we got what we deserved at the end.  We got our just desserts.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #46 - February 17, 2014, 02:16 AM

    The "stated purpose" was to protect the local population from genocide.
    That worked quite well.
    The unstated purpose was to provide a safe haven for Iraqi, Irani, and Turkish dissidents.
    That has worked really well, too.
    The other purposes are political, military, and financial, and this is going strong.
    So I guess you have to decide for yourself, who should have died. Half of Iraq, in 1991, or a dozen years later?
    I cannot make that call. Between populations, like that. None of them deserved any of what they got.
    But without the no fly zone, there would be no functioning political party at all in Iraq to take even a semblance of control. So that is a plus that we do not have without it. Another is an area free of war in Iraq, which would not have been the case had Anfal been successful, and the favored Sunni Arabs replacing the locals. I see it as more hopeful than had we not established the no fly zone, if all the subsequent happenings were the same.
    Flyover attacks did not originate from there, if you were not aware.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #47 - February 17, 2014, 10:03 PM

    Quote
    The "stated purpose" was to protect the local population from genocide.


    It was?  Because over a million people being killed is not close to "genocide"?  Also further wracking their country causing a massive orgy of violence, preceded by a brutal invasion that almost killed nearly a million as well?  Lol, I love America, we're always saving people by killing them Tongue  And then people wonder why others try to blow us up and hate us...

    I must say, I have no respect for chicken hawks who praise people being bombed and killed. Tongue

    Quote
    But without the no fly zone, there would be no functioning political party at all in Iraq to take even a semblance of control. So that is a plus that we do not have without it. Another is an area free of war in Iraq, which would not have been the case had Anfal been successful, and the favored Sunni Arabs replacing the locals. I see it as more hopeful than had we not established the no fly zone, if all the subsequent happenings were the same.


    Clearly you haven't been paying attention for the past 20 years.

  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #48 - February 18, 2014, 12:34 AM

    I think you need to further back than twenty years, to understand my references. Halabja was more than twenty years ago. This has been formally recognized, even in Iraq, as an act of genocide. Al Anfal was not a joke.
    You are dealing with a complex issue, here. You think it would have been better to leave a people open to slaughter? Better to let them die? Look at how successful they have been, they are a bright light in Iraq, their governance is very advanced, for where they are, it seems miraculous.
    There is no lesser in either evil of war.
    But the no fly zone was the right thing to do. The locals did not let it be used as a stage for attacks. It was inevitable, given our alliance, that it not be used for R&R and consultation, translators, but we attacked from Iraq's neighbor and enemy, Kuwait. We were lucky to get quality translators with formal human rights training, they acted as community liasions.
    You stated there was not a successful track record, and this is one definite example of success. It was established, when, 1991? More than twenty years ago?
    I have been paying close and personal attention to this matter, from two sides, for longer than your timeframe.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #49 - February 18, 2014, 02:03 AM

    I find your statements very suspect.  First of all, all these atrocities under Saddam Hussein you're feigning concern about were due to US given weapons and US coordination and support, so to support a US strike on Iraq because they did things we wanted them to do and enabled them to do, is just laughable to the extreme. 

    Quote
    You stated there was not a successful track record, and this is one definite example of success. It was established, when, 1991? More than twenty years ago?


    It depends on how you define success.  If it was successful in blowing the country to bits, absolutely.  In promoting peace, I don't know even what to say to this.  I guess as Orwell said "war is peace" Tongue

    Also I was giving a roundabout number, if you're going to be a stickler for such things, I don't know what to tell you, but that's truly pathetic.

    Quote
    Look at how successful they have been, they are a bright light in Iraq, their governance is very advanced, for where they are, it seems miraculous.


    Lmao, yeah the country descending into complete chaos and civil war is going toward a very bright future.  Who do you think you're fooling with this stuff, yourself?  Whatever helps you sleep at night.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #50 - February 18, 2014, 02:19 AM

    I find your statements very suspect.  First of all, all these atrocities under Saddam Hussein you're feigning concern about were due to US given weapons and US coordination and support, so to support a US strike on Iraq because they did things we wanted them to do and enabled them to do, is just laughable to the extreme. 

    It depends on how you define success.  If it was successful in blowing the country to bits, absolutely.  In promoting peace, I don't know even what to say to this.  I guess as Orwell said "war is peace" Tongue

    Also I was giving a roundabout number, if you're going to be a stickler for such things, I don't know what to tell you, but that's truly pathetic.

    Lmao, yeah the country descending into complete chaos and civil war is going toward a very bright future.  Who do you think you're fooling with this stuff, yourself?  Whatever helps you sully your conscious...


    The success I defined was the success of the flyover zone. The flyover zone was not a stage for attacks, I am sure you know that. I already mentioned I was clarifying your comment on poor track record for the US regarding no fly zones. Northern Iraq is a decent example of a successful no fly zone.

    The chemical weapons and ingredients obtained for what was used on Halabja were sourced from many countries. The USA was not one of them. During the conflict with Iran, there were many countries that sold weaponry to Iraq, and few Western countries were selling to Iran.
    We were selling to the other side, to Iran, via Israel, it was a huge scandal. Remember Iran-Contra? You do not seem to know. Oliver North?
    Without the PUK and it's long substantial history, things in Iraq would be much worse. Talibani has done much better than his fellow politicians have, in the Iraqi presidency.
    Yes, it is descending into chaos. No, I cannot say Saddam was a better alternative.
    Genocide vs War.  I cannot make such a call. Either way, masses die.
    But I can say that this flyover zone was successful. And it was not a stage for attacks into Iraq.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #51 - February 18, 2014, 02:31 AM

    Quote
    The success I defined was the success of the flyover zone. The flyover zone was not a stage for attacks, I am sure you know that. I already mentioned I was clarifying your comment on poor track record for the US regarding no fly zones. Northern Iraq is a decent example of a successful no fly zone.


    You misunderstood my original statement then.  I don't think we have a poor track record with them in actuality, since they're really good at making people suffer and killing people, but obviously since we have the superior hardware and technology.  They're not very successful in the faux mission statements people give though.  I mean if you're really thinking Iraq is a peaceful, nice place and this is due to the constant bombings and attacks they've faced, then I don't know what to tell you.  Stop watching so much MSNBC.

    Quote
    The chemical weapons and ingredients obtained for what was used on Halabja were sourced from many countries. The USA was not one of them. During the conflict with Iran, there were many countries that sold weaponry to Iraq, and few Western countries were selling to Iran.


    Oh please, give me a break...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Western_help_with_Iraq.27s_WMD_program

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

    "The 2002 International Crisis Group (ICG) no. 136 "Arming Saddam: The Yugoslav Connection" concludes it was "tacit approval" by many world governments that led to the Iraqi regime being armed with weapons of mass destruction, despite sanctions, because of the ongoing Iranian conflict. Among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from American companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips was thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, according to leaked portions of Iraq's "full, final and complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs. The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan Administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Alcolac was named as a defendant in the Aziz v. Iraq case presently pending in the United States District Court (Case No. 1:09-cv-00869-MJG). Both companies have since undergone reorganization. Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company. Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[26]"

    So yeah, the US has to bomb countries it gives weapons to.  Lol, and people wonder why the rest of the world sees Americans as blind hypocrites...

    Quote
    But I can say that this flyover zone was successful. And it was not a stage for attacks into Iraq.


    Except the no-fly zone was a series of attacks on Iraq that killed nearly a million people.  But I don't expect you to care about that...

    Quote
    Yes, it is descending into chaos. No, I cannot say Saddam was a better alternative.


    This is kind of a stupid statement to make.  Also, just to add, a lot of Iraqis actually miss Saddam.  That's how fucked up the US has made the country.

    Quote
    Genocide vs War.  I cannot make such a call. Either way, masses die.


    I wish you'd have to don a uniform and fight in the wars you love so much.  Oh well, no one said the world is just...
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #52 - February 18, 2014, 03:08 AM

    Northern Iraq is actually a very nice place, and very peaceful, and it's progress took off, with the no fly zone over it. I never said all of Iraq was such. I don't understand how a no fly zone kills anyone, except for the inhabitants of the aircraft that enter that space. What the no fly zone did in Northern Iraq was prevent the genocide of the people underneath it. Why do you state the no fly zone was a series of attacks on a civilian population? When the US wished to stage attacks on the rest of Iraq, that space was not available to them, and neither was Turkey's. They used Kuwait, mostly.

    I am not referring to any hype at all on weapons of mass destruction. I am clarifying the cause of the establishment of the no fly zone over Northern Iraq, why it was felt to be necessary, and that it was successful at protecting the population found there from genocide.

    I do not have television. I do not watch MSNBC. Until two years ago I did not receive news from any English source at all. Most of my television came from the ME, in the languages commonly found there. 

    The precursors were purchased from many countries, no matter the manufacturing source. I am not saying it is right, I do not think any country should use such things. Turkey was bombing it's citizens right on the border of the no fly zone we are discussing, in 2011, with phosphorous. Many people escaped into Northern Iraq, from that horror. But you cannot say the US held it out to Iraq and told them to go to town on Halabja.

    I resent the fact that you claim I love war. I have not said such a thing. When a population is facing genocide, what should they do? Should they lay down and die, or should they fight? Maybe, with help, they could just keep those who wish them harm at bay. That is a nice alternative. Better than Genocide vs War.

    I think establishing a safe zone, and keeping out those who wish you harm, is a decent idea.

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #53 - February 18, 2014, 03:24 AM

    Quote
    Northern Iraq is actually a very nice place, and very peaceful, and it's progress took off,


    Oh dear...

    Quote
    I never said all of Iraq was such. I don't understand how a no fly zone kills anyone, except for the inhabitants of the aircraft that enter that space. What the no fly zone did in Northern Iraq was prevent the genocide of the people underneath it. Why do you state the no fly zone was a series of attacks on a civilian population? When the US wished to stage attacks on the rest of Iraq, that space was not available to them, and neither was Turkey's. They used Kuwait, mostly.


    Um...do you even know what you're talking about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

    Something tells me you're too young to remember all this or all you gleaned from this was from Good Morning America...

    Quote
    I do not have television. I do not watch MSNBC. Until two years ago I did not receive news from any English source at all. Most of my television came from the ME, in the languages commonly found there. 


    Or I guess you don't know at all what you're talking about...you really are misinformed...

    Quote
    The precursors were purchased from many countries, no matter the manufacturing source. I am not saying it is right, I do not think any country should use such things. Turkey was bombing it's citizens right on the border of the no fly zone we are discussing, in 2011, with phosphorous. Many people escaped into Northern Iraq, from that horror. But you cannot say the US held it out to Iraq and told them to go to town on Halabja.


    You don't seem to know much about the events you're trotting out.  I gave relevant links, maybe you should read them.

    Quote
    I resent the fact that you claim I love war. I have not said such a thing. When a population is facing genocide, what should they do? Should they lay down and die, or should they fight? Maybe, with help, they could just keep those who wish them harm at bay. That is a nice alternative. Better than Genocide vs War.


    Don't give me your crocodile tears, especially when the oh so horrible actions you claim to condemn were enabled by the very things you yourself support.  It's really funny to condemn genocidal actions enabled by the very people you support.  Also the Iraqis did rise up on their own after 1991, and we let them get slaughtered.  Way to go America, lol

  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #54 - February 18, 2014, 03:58 AM

    You should go there, and see.

    So the no fly zones were used as an excuse to take out military installations. But they were not used to target civilians, as I told you, and they were not allowed, in Northern Iraq (I do not know anything about Southern) to use the area as a jumping off point for strikes when the offensive began. There was too much at stake in the future of Iraq to allow for such, because of the ambitious proposed involvement (at the time, now it is fact) of the KDP and the PUK on the national stage. If they had allowed such, they would have had to separate, and then both would have been fodder for Iran. Maybe too late for that, anyway.

    I am actually giving you information from the links you provided, which details what countries provided precursors, and in what tonnage.

    "Most precursors for chemical weapons production came from Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics, sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. Singapore-based firm Kim Al-Khaleej, affiliated to the United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq."

    I do condemn war and genocide. I have told you I think the no fly zone did protect the people beneath it, which makes it successful, as was it's "stated" original purpose, a dozen years prior to 2003. My statements are a reaction to your claim that there is no good track record to this action, because this is a good track record on a no fly zone, of preserving a population from genocide.

    I know what happened in 91. I already told you. I am full aware of American's culpability in many actions across the world. I do not excuse them. But I am saying, this no fly zone, in Northern Iraq, prevented a genocide, in many opinions, and certainly in the opinions of the people living there, whatever their party affiliation might be, whatever their country of origin. They are in agreement. They were there, so I had been listening closely to what they had to say about events on their soil.


    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #55 - February 18, 2014, 04:06 AM

    *sigh*

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

    "United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

    Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline,that the "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[5]"

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

    "The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan Administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Alcolac was named as a defendant in the Aziz v. Iraq case presently pending in the United States District Court (Case No. 1:09-cv-00869-MJG). Both companies have since undergone reorganization. Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company. Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[26]"

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

    The reality is, Saddam only became the killing machine he was with US assistance and weaponry, and we only attacked him once he became more trouble than he was worth.

    Quote
    I do condemn war and genocide. I have told you I think the no fly zone did protect the people beneath it, which makes it successful, as was it's "stated" original purpose, a dozen years prior to 2003. My statements are a reaction to your claim that there is no good track record to this action, because this is a good track record on a no fly zone, of preserving a population from genocide.


    *sigh*

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/107/iraq-was-being-bombed-during-12-years-of-sanctions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%281998%29

    What an odd way to protect people.

    I consider you pro-war if you are actually advocating war, silly me.  Also silly me for saying it was successful at killing people, something you think either didn't happen or think was a good thing.

  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #56 - February 18, 2014, 11:11 AM

    I am probably going to step on some toes here but..... Either go in with boots on the ground or not at all.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #57 - February 18, 2014, 12:57 PM

    Hi bogart.
    So are you saying that, after Anfal, the US should have either left the situation alone, or gone into Iraq in a full blown military action at that time? No halfsies?

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #58 - February 18, 2014, 05:54 PM

    Quote
    So are you saying that, after Anfal, the US should have either left the situation alone, or gone into Iraq in a full blown military action at that time? No halfsies?


    The same Al-Anfal campaign done with US intelligence and weaponry?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_campaign#U.S._Stance

    "Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and U.S. State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam."[23]"

    Alongside all the other links I've given...
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #59 - February 19, 2014, 12:34 AM

    Anfal is a different situation than Syria. Hindsight being 20/20 they should have gone in. For that matter they, America, should have never supported Iraq in the 80s by arming it's military. My stance on Syria is based on the fragmentation of the FSA, the Islamist groups and cultural/tribal groups all fighting each other just as hard as they fight the government. I do not think any faction is an appropriate replacement for the old government. Also I think even with the government removed as a player the civil war will continue between other factions. I do not think Libya is the model to follow for Syria. I do not think the air-strike alone model works in the end. Boots on the ground means factions can be separated, disarmed and force to join table talks. Nation building rather than letting people fight over the ashes.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »