Assad

[zoom17]

How long do you think he will last before being killed or removed. I cant believe he lasted this long.

[HarryCallahan]

A long time. He is supported by the majority of Syrian's. Depending on how involved the US becomes, he might last until the elections, where if he runs he'll be re-elected.

[fiddy]

http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311279
http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311724

[fiddy]

A long time. He is supported by the majority of Syrian's. Depending on how involved the US becomes, he might last until the elections, where if he runs he'll be re-elected.
Hes part of a minority group himself. Off the top of my head alawites are about 12% of the syrian population.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

It depends on whether or not congress votes for us to go in Syria. Right now the Rebels are definitely at a disadvantage if we get the vote passed us working with rebels it could be done in a half a year or a year. I really don't think we'll go in though. I believe Congress is mostly republican and neocons only like to intervene when there's something in it for them. Like Bush and Iraq, we all know we went in there because of oil. Now we're going in for a good cause(saving innocent women and children dieing to chemical weapon attacks) so I don't think we'll go on. Republicans are truly scum, they'd rather let people die unless there's something in it for them. I've already seen some republicans speak out about it including Gelnn Beck, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and a few other assholes.

[HarryCallahan]

Hes part of a minority group himself. Off the top of my head alawites are about 12% of the syrian population.

Yeah but he's got the Shia, Christian's and moderate Sunni's on his side too.

(Good memory btw)

[HarryCallahan]

It depends on whether or not congress votes for us to go in Syria. Right now the Rebels are definitely at a disadvantage if we get the vote passed us working with rebels it could be done in a half a year or a year. I really don't think we'll go in though. I believe Congress is mostly republican and neocons only like to intervene when there's something in it for them. Like Bush and Iraq, we all know we went in there because of oil. Now we're going in for a good cause(saving innocent women and children dieing to chemical weapon attacks) so I don't think we'll go on. Republicans are truly scum, they'd rather let people die unless there's something in it for them. I've already seen some republicans speak out about it including Gelnn Beck, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and a few other assholes.

You honestly need to sever your testicles if you are serious. Neo-Cons are advocating for invasion.

The US isn't going in to help people either, how about I help you by dropping bombs on your house?

[tomtucker]

Yeah but he's got the Shia, Christian's and moderate Sunni's on his side too.

(Good memory btw)

speaking of Christian's, they are all gonna be killed if assad goes down and the islamic "rebels" take over..........and the US want to help make that fukking happen :rolleyes:




.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

You honestly need to sever your testicles if you are serious. Neo-Cons are advocating for invasion.

The US isn't going in to help people either, how about I help you by dropping bombs on your house?
Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.

And as I've seen it most neocons are against it. Unless it involves oil or something valuable, they'd rather ignore it and let thousands die. You think Romney would care if Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by their own government? I doubt it.

[fiddy]

Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.
:roll: :facepalm :wtf:

[LJJ]

speaking of Christian's, they are all gonna be killed of assad goes down and the islamic "rebels" take over..........and the US want to help make that fukking happen :rolleyes:

They are not all going to be killed. They'll simply be ushered into conversion.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

I like how everyone thinks bad about our government. Of course conspiracy theorists would try to bash our government and Obama in order to scare everybody and make themselves sound smarter. Their own GOVERNMENT has been killing them, isn't that reason enough to go in and fight the corrupt Syrian government? Why does everyone always thing there are hidden motives for everything the government does? I full 100% support attacking the Syrian government, it's the RIGHT thing to do.

If you think our Government ois so bad and corrupt, go live in Syria under Assad's rule. Since he's such a good ****ing guy.

[tomtucker]

They are not all going to be killed. They'll simply be ushered into conversion.

right, or experiment with gas on the Christians, if they run out of rabbits.........the options are endless

[HarryCallahan]

Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.

And as I've seen it most neocons are against it. Unless it involves oil or something valuable, they'd rather ignore it and let thousands die. You think Romney would care if Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by their own government? I doubt it.

This is why anybody who identifies as a republican or democrat is an IDIOT. Bush is a war-criminal, Obama a humanitarian...

-The rebels are terrorists

-Neo-Cons are for it McCain, Graham, Santorum et al.

-Romney said during the campaign that he would invade Syria- DURING the campaign..

-Assad isn't killing civilians dipsh!t. (except for "collateral damage," which would increase if the US went in.)

- Obama is a kid killer himself, he gives exactly ZERO sh!ts.

Sever your testicles

[HarryCallahan]

I like how everyone thinks bad about our government. Of course conspiracy theorists would try to bash our government and Obama in order to scare everybody and make themselves sound smarter. Their own GOVERNMENT has been killing them, isn't that reason enough to go in and fight the corrupt Syrian government? Why does everyone always thing there are hidden motives for everything the government does? I full 100% support attacking the Syrian government, it's the RIGHT thing to do.

If you think our Government ois so bad and corrupt, go live in Syria under Assad's rule. Since he's such a good ****ing guy.

Germany/Canada/France/UK need to invade the US then moron.

Obama assassinated this American:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

And also his 17y.o son and 16y.o nephew

http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Abdulrahman-al-Awlaki.jpg

[Jameerthefear]

I don't really keep up with this stuff, so what's actually going on?

[Nick Young]

How long do you think he will last before being killed or removed. I cant believe he lasted this long.
Syria supports him. If they didn't, he'd be dead by now.

The gas attack was obviously the rebels trying to force Western intervention. Don't you think it's a little too convenient that two weeks after Obama issues a no-gas attack ultimatum Assad suddenly launches a gas attack? He's not an idiot. He's not a moron. He's not Darth Vader. It makes no sense to do something so idiotic. So far there is absolutely zero evidence that Assad is responsible for the attack, and several witnesses have come out claiming it was infact the rebels, backed by the United States who unleashed the gas.

He is no great leader, but he is not the Hitler like Evil dictator that the US is trying to market to the public. The Syrian people were relatively well off compared to other nations in the region and even now a majority of Syrians support Assad despite him coming from a Shia backround which is only I think a 12% minority in Syria.

He has committed human rights breaches, but no more then any other world leader has, including good old president Obama.

The world should not intervene in this bullshit. Assad is no good guy but the rebels are Al Quaeda associated civilian murdering suicide bombing cannibals. The US has no business supporting them with billions of tax payer dollars.

[HarryCallahan]

I don't really keep up with this stuff, so what's actually going on?

More or less Assad is the Syrian pres. He's fighting a war against American backed, Saudi and Turkish armed/funded terrorists.

Obama wants in, supposedly to punish the Syrians for a chemical weapons attack that there's no evidence they committed. It's just a pre-text for getting in.

[Nick Young]

It depends on whether or not congress votes for us to go in Syria. Right now the Rebels are definitely at a disadvantage if we get the vote passed us working with rebels it could be done in a half a year or a year. I really don't think we'll go in though. I believe Congress is mostly republican and neocons only like to intervene when there's something in it for them. Like Bush and Iraq, we all know we went in there because of oil. Now we're going in for a good cause(saving innocent women and children dieing to chemical weapon attacks) so I don't think we'll go on. Republicans are truly scum, they'd rather let people die unless there's something in it for them. I've already seen some republicans speak out about it including Gelnn Beck, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and a few other assholes.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wow moron, do you think there is no oil in Syria? Didn't you know that the Saudis have been trying to build a pipeline from Saudi to Europe and Syria is in the way and Assad has been against the project? Didn't you know that the Saudis are close US allies?

This isn't a war to save innocent children. Dont fall for Obama's bullshit.

[Jameerthefear]

More or less Assad is the Syrian pres. He's fighting a war against American backed, Saudi and Turkish armed/funded terrorists.

Obama wants in, supposedly to punish the Syrians for a chemical weapons attack that there's no evidence they committed. It's just a pre-text for getting in.
So is starting a war with them good or bad?

[code green]

So is starting a war with them good or bad?

It could potentially start WW3, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.

[Jameerthefear]

It could potentially start WW3, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.
Okay so bad then...

[Nick Young]

Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.

And as I've seen it most neocons are against it. Unless it involves oil or something valuable, they'd rather ignore it and let thousands die. You think Romney would care if Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by their own government? I doubt it.
Jesus Christ you are really an idiot!

'Limited airstrikes' to Obama =hundreds of civilians including women and children killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Obama dismissing it as 'collateral damage'.

So you are advocating for the US to go in and kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent Syrian civilians with their 'limited targeted airstrikes?'

Following that line of logic, basically you support the United States going in to Syria and murdering civilians.

You claim to be a 'liberal' in favor of human rights and yet you are advocating for the death of thousands of Syrian innocents, funded by the American tax payer dollars.


Even if Assad did use chemical weapons to kill civilians and there is absolutely zero evidence that he did, how is that any difference from Obama killing 3,000+ civilians in Pakistan with drones strikes due to 'collateral damage' in only 6 years?

http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html
Educate yourself, old sport.

[QUOTE]Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

It reads: 'Phil... We

[HarryCallahan]

So is starting a war with them good or bad?

Well aside from the incredible immorality of attacking a country (on behalf of Al-Quadea no less) that has neither threatened nor attacked you.... It is an incredibly poor move strategically, as Code Green said, it could lead to WW3 against Russia/China.

America's empire is stretched too thin as it is. $17billion in debt with military bases in OVER 100 countries.


Yes it's bad, very, very, bad.

[Nick Young]

Let's help put these people in to power. They're the lovable and righteous freedom fighters!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10051207/Under-the-black-flag-of-al-Qaeda-the-Syrian-city-ruled-by-gangs-of-extremists.html

[QUOTE] The black flag of al-Qaeda flies high over Raqqa

[Trollsmasher]

Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.

And as I've seen it most neocons are against it. Unless it involves oil or something valuable, they'd rather ignore it and let thousands die. You think Romney would care if Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by their own government? I doubt it.
sure... humanitarian bombing right?:lol

[fiddy]

sure... humanitarian bombing right?:lol
Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity. I think i heard that one in an Immortal Technique track.

[KevinNYC]

A long time. He is supported by the majority of Syrian's. Depending on how involved the US becomes, he might last until the elections, where if he runs he'll be re-elected.

How do you say he is supported by the majority of Syrians? He has the overwhelming support of Alawites, but they are not the majority of the country.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg

He's been able to stay in power so long, among other reasons
A. Alawite support gives a strong base of support.
B. The rebels are not unified.*
C. He had control of an army/intelligence services that for a long time was designed to protect from threats from within as much as it was about threats from without.

*The big divide is between the secular and the islamist groups. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army which includes a lot of Syrian soldiers who defected. However, even the Islamist side of the Syrian rebels are not unified. They range from the more moderate Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, to the salafist Syrian Islamic Front, to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front, which is fairly small.

When you see the kids on this board saying "rebels are Al Qaeda" it's a sure sign they don't know what they are talking about.

[Nick Young]

How do you say he is supported by the majority of Syrians? He has the overwhelming support of Alawites, but they are not the majority of the country.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/PieChart13Dec.jpg

He's been able to stay in power so long, among other reasons
A. Alawite support gives a strong base of support.
B. The rebels are not unified.*
C. He had control of an army/intelligence services that for a long time was designed to protect from threats from within as much as it was about threats from without.

*The big divide is between the secular and the islamist groups. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army which includes a lot of Syrian soldiers who defected. However, even the Islamist side of the Syrian rebels are not unified. They range from the more moderate Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, to the salafist Syrian Islamic Front, to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front, which is fairly small.

When you see the kids on this board saying "rebels are Al Qaeda" it's a sure sign they don't know what they are talking about.

First of all, I don't know why you seem against the 'minority Alawites' because they are a very liberal and progressive sect of Islam.


Second of all:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

55% of Syrians support Assad. Before the civil war, Syria was actually one of the most progressive countries in the region.


CNN is making up fake news to support the invasion of Syria.
http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/anderson-cooper-and-cnn-caught-staging-fake-news-about-syria-to-justify-military-intervention-videos/

Stop believing the bullshit propaganda. In the age of global media and internet it is nearly impossible to pull this bullshit off these days.

[LJJ]

How do you say he is supported by the majority of Syrians? He has the overwhelming support of Alawites, but they are not the majority of the country.


There was a news story a couple of months ago that NATO researched the support for both sideds and a large majority of them supported Assad over the rebels. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Apparently 70% of the population favors Assad and only 10% favors the rebels. This story did not get nearly the attention it should have gotten, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media here wants to sell.



You can also simply look at the sides here: Assad's forces are all Syrian, while the rebel forces are largely composed of foreign jihadist warriors.

[HarryCallahan]

When you see the kids on this board saying "rebels are Al Qaeda" it's a sure sign they don't know what they are talking about.

:rolleyes:

Or they're being hyperbolic...

[East_Stone_Ya]

It's the ****ing Arab League that want's Assad gone and they have some powerful resources to convince western governments to intervene

[KevinNYC]

If you think that the US government/Obama Administration/shadowy figures behind both have been clamoring for to enter this war, it again shows what you don't know what you are talking about.

In May they are trying to get Syria and the rebels to hold peace talks.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/kerry-mideast-advance-struggling-syria-plan

In July, they were trying diplomacy at the UN to halt the violence.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/07/06/Homs-onslaught-heightens-as-U-N-powers-wrangle.html
Russia and China used their powers as permanent council members to veto three resolutions which sought to increase pressure on Assad over the conflict.

Last year, the CIA wanted to arm the rebels and the administration nixed it. In June this year, it was announced they did begin sending small arms to the secular rebels. This was done for two reasons, Assad had begun using chemical weapons on a small scale and the rise of the islamist rebels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?pagewanted=2

[LJJ]

If you think that the US government/Obama Administration/shadowy figures behind both have been clamoring for to enter this war, it again shows what you don't know what you are talking about.

In May they are trying to get Syria and the rebels to hold peace talks.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/kerry-mideast-advance-struggling-syria-plan

In July, they were trying diplomacy at the UN to halt the violence.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/07/06/Homs-onslaught-heightens-as-U-N-powers-wrangle.html

Last year, the CIA wanted to arm the rebels and the administration nixed it. In June this year, it was announced they did begin sending small arms to the secular rebels. This was done for two reasons, Assad had begun using chemical weapons on a small scale and the rise of the islamist rebels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?pagewanted=2

Again, why the hell should the UN put pressure on Assad when he has the support of the vast majority of the Syrian population and is combating a largely foreign "rebel" force? Why should Assad have to enter "peace talks" with them?

For the US this entire thing is about Assad being a proxy for Russia and China, rather than one for the US.

[KevinNYC]

There was a news story a couple of months ago that NATO researched the support for both sideds and a large majority of them supported Assad over the rebels. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Apparently 70% of the population favors Assad and only 10% favors the rebels. This story did not get nearly the attention it should have gotten, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media here wants to sell.



You can also simply look at the sides here: Assad's forces are all Syrian, while the rebel forces are largely composed of foreign jihadist warriors.
The largest rebel force is composed of syrian soldiers who defected. Foreign mujahaddin is estimated to be fairly small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Mujahideen_involvement) less than 10% of the fighters involved on the rebels side.

[KevinNYC]

Again, why the hell should the UN put pressure on Assad when he has the support of the vast majority of the Syrian population and is combating a largely foreign "rebel" force? Why should Assad have to enter "peace talks" with them?

For the US this entire thing is about Assad being a proxy for Russia and China, rather than one for the US.
At the time Assad was shelling the civilian populations of Hom.

[KevinNYC]

There was a news story a couple of months ago that NATO researched the support for both sideds and a large majority of them supported Assad over the rebels. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Apparently 70% of the population favors Assad and only 10% favors the rebels. This story did not get nearly the attention it should have gotten, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media here wants to sell.

thanks.

[KingBeasley08]

US is just trying to flex its muscles. Obama, Bush, doesn't matter who the President is these days. All the same


This is an even worse war than fvcking Iraq. At least there was actual evidence that Hussein was using chemical weapons. But KevinNYC is gonna argue that war was bad because... the Republicans were in power. Stupid partisanship ruining this country

[HarryCallahan]

Those "peace talks" were bs theatre. Neither side was going to sit down.

If Obarmer didn't want in he shouldn't have called for Assad's ouster 2 years ago, or drawn a ridiculously arbitrary red-line, or here's an insane conspiracy for ya Kev; If Obama doesn't want to go in, he can just not go in... crazy idea right? You don't know what you're talking about.

[Derka]

Yeah but he's got the Shia, Christian's and moderate Sunni's on his side too.

(Good memory btw)

What's interesting is that the people trying to oust him...the people we arm...would persecute the ever-loving shit out of Christians and Shiites.

[Nick Young]

There was a news story a couple of months ago that NATO researched the support for both sideds and a large majority of them supported Assad over the rebels. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

Apparently 70% of the population favors Assad and only 10% favors the rebels. This story did not get nearly the attention it should have gotten, because it doesn't fit the narrative the media here wants to sell.



You can also simply look at the sides here: Assad's forces are all Syrian, while the rebel forces are largely composed of foreign jihadist warriors.
Neo-liberalism is Imperialism. Let's bomb for peace! Let's murder civilians in the name of civic happiness!

[MavsSuperFan]

Okay so bad then...

Meh thats debateable.

Making an alliance with hitler would have kept us out of the european theater of WWII. (I know how unrealistic that would have been for us to do, and that Assad is no where near that level of threat, but just pointing out sometimes fighting a war is necessary imo)

[ihoopallday]

Just got a call from my commander. I think it's time to get worried.

[HarryCallahan]

Meh thats debateable.

Making an alliance with hitler would have kept us out of the european theater of WWII. (I know how unrealistic that would have been for us to do, and that Assad is no where near that level of threat, but just pointing out sometimes fighting a war is necessary imo)

There is no good argument that this is "necessary" for the US.


Just got a call from my commander. I think it's time to get worried.

Fingers crossed you get to stay in the USA.

[MavsSuperFan]

US is just trying to flex its muscles. Obama, Bush, doesn't matter who the President is these days. All the same


This is an even worse war than fvcking Iraq. At least there was actual evidence that Hussein was using chemical weapons. But KevinNYC is gonna argue that war was bad because... the Republicans were in power. Stupid partisanship ruining this country

There was solid evidence that Saddam had used chemical to suppress the Kurds at the end of the first gulf war. That was more than a decade earlier than we invaded them.


More or less Assad is the Syrian pres. He's fighting a war against American backed, Saudi and Turkish armed/funded terrorists.

Obama wants in, supposedly to punish the Syrians for a chemical weapons attack that there's no evidence they committed. It's just a pre-text for getting in.

I dont support intervening in Syria, but this is an extremely biased interpretation. There are many legitimate reasons the Sunni population want Assad removed.


How long do you think he will last before being killed or removed. I cant believe he lasted this long.

If we attack, and I dont think we should, It ends pretty fast unless the russians start to bomb the rebels. (the Russians would not directly attack our warships for Assad, just like we wouldnt directly attack them for the rebels)

Eg. Western powers started to bomb and missile strike Libya, Gaddafi died real fast.

The US military has weaknesses, Eg. the ability to handle asymmetric warfare, the ability to occupy a nation long term, the willingness to take casualties.

However bombing things from the air and launching missiles from our warships is one of our strengths


Limited airstrikes they won't be bombing innocent civillians. They'll probably bomb Syrian Military Bases and stuff, this isn't Iraq. We have a motive in helping the rebels and saving lives.

And as I've seen it most neocons are against it. Unless it involves oil or something valuable, they'd rather ignore it and let thousands die. You think Romney would care if Syrian civilians were being slaughtered by their own government? I doubt it.

First it could be argued that you were protecting the civilian population of Iraq by invading it. Obviously this isn't why we invaded Iraq, but just for the record, Assad is leagues better than Saddam and his sons were. Eg. Assad doesn't randomly rape the wives of other men and beat them to death. Assad also doesn't have the national soccer team tortured when they lose. He also doesn't have rape rooms.

Don't get me wrong Assad is an evil dictator, but there are levels of evil. Saddam is like a comic book villain.

All Neocons support invading Syria. Either you don't know what a neocon is or you are lying. Eg. Cheney, Rove, McCain etc.

Neocon logic dedicates that anytime you can establish a pro American government (puppet or satellite) in a strategically located position or deny a competing world power the same you should. Syria is in arguably the most strategically important location on earth. By taking it, You lock the russians out of the mediterranean and the middle east.

Secondly fighting a war, always creates the chance weapon manufacturers can make money.


It depends on whether or not congress votes for us to go in Syria. Right now the Rebels are definitely at a disadvantage if we get the vote passed us working with rebels it could be done in a half a year or a year. I really don't think we'll go in though. I believe Congress is mostly republican and neocons only like to intervene when there's something in it for them. Like Bush and Iraq, we all know we went in there because of oil. Now we're going in for a good cause(saving innocent women and children dieing to chemical weapon attacks) so I don't think we'll go on. Republicans are truly scum, they'd rather let people die unless there's something in it for them. I've already seen some republicans speak out about it including Gelnn Beck, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and a few other assholes.

None of those 3 guys are neocons. Ron and Rand Paul are almost the exact opposite of Neocons.

[MavsSuperFan]

There is no good argument that this is "necessary" for the US.
.
Agreed.

But there is an argument that it would be the just/righteous thing to do.
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Also there is an argument that successfully planting a pro American government in Syria is in our selfish best interest. Obviously this is an extremely unlikely outcome, but even planting an anti russian government serves to weak russia.

The great game 2.0

[Derka]

Just got a call from my commander. I think it's time to get worried.

Stay safe and if they send you, do whatever you have to do to get back home.

[code green]

There are many legitimate reasons the Sunni population want Assad removed.

Not arguing, but care to explain? The only reason is to implement a "real" Muslim state, aka Sharia Law. All sects of Islam and Christians were living in relative peace compared to the rest of the Middle East during both Assads' rules.

[MavsSuperFan]

Not arguing, but care to explain? The only reason is to implement a "real" Muslim state, aka Sharia Law. All sects of Islam and Christians were living in relative peace compared to the rest of the Middle East during both Assads' rules.

Its simple, Assad and his father have brutally massacred people (assad's dad's massacre was in 1989 i believe). Wanting the ability to choose your leaders and to punish those leaders who have committed massacres to stay in power is legitimate imo.

I don't support extremist Islam, but I do think it could be argued that the Sunni have many legit grievances against the Assad family. The Assad family have managed to stay in power this long primarily though violence and intimidation.

They are a pro russian dictatorship. The best comparison I can think of off the top of my head would be what Mubarak used to be for us. Mubarak was a pro american dictator. Also the al Saud family is also a decent comparison. It hurt American interests when Mubarak was deposed and the Muslim brotherhood was brought to power, but you could argue it was the more righteous outcome than Mubarak's family ruling forever. Nowadays the military has take over again and the US breaths a secret sigh of relief.

The Saud family are brutal dictators, but it would devastate US foreign policy if they lost power.

[Nick Young]

Agreed.

But there is an argument that it would be the just/righteous thing to do.
It is not as black and white as you make it out to be.
Also there is an argument that successfully planting a pro American government in Syria is in our selfish best interest. Obviously this is an extremely unlikely outcome, but even planting an anti russian government serves to weak russia.

The great game 2.0
Is it righteous to support the team that films its members cutting out human hearts and eating them, and then broadcasts it to the entire world?

[Nick Young]

Its simple, Assad and his father have brutally massacred people (assad's dad's massacre was in 1989 i believe). Wanting the ability to choose your leaders and to punish those leaders who have committed massacres to stay in power is legitimate imo.

I don't support extremist Islam, but I do think it could be argued that the Sunni have many legit grievances against the Assad family. The Assad family have managed to stay in power this long primarily though violence and intimidation.

They are a pro russian dictatorship. The best comparison I can think of off the top of my head would be what Mubarak used to be for us. Mubarak was a pro american dictator. Also the al Saud family is also a decent comparison. It hurt American interests when Mubarak was deposed and the Muslim brotherhood was brought to power, but you could argue it was the more righteous outcome than Mubarak's family ruling forever. Nowadays the military has take over again and the US breaths a secret sigh of relief.

The Saud family are brutal dictators, but it would devastate US foreign policy if they lost power.
So current Assad should be blamed and held accountable for the actions of his father now?:confusedshrug:

70% of Syrians support Assad.(http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/) There is zero proof that he is responsible for the latest chemical weapons attack. Who are we to intervene here?

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

sure... humanitarian bombing right?:lol
No you're right perhaps we should go to Syria and schedule a tea Party with Assad where we will eat rainbow cupcakes and ask him nicely to stop killing his own people. Doesn't work like that asshole.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Wow moron, do you think there is no oil in Syria? Didn't you know that the Saudis have been trying to build a pipeline from Saudi to Europe and Syria is in the way and Assad has been against the project? Didn't you know that the Saudis are close US allies?

This isn't a war to save innocent children. Dont fall for Obama's bullshit.
Didn't say there is no oil I'm sayjng we're going in with a clear plan. With Bush and Iraq, we just went into Iraq with no clear cut plan on how to find Osama or anything. We ended up Nation building and so on, it was kinda rushed. This time with Obama, we have a plan and a clear cut motive to help the rebels against Assad. It has nothing to do with oil, it's about stopping a ruthless dictator. Now stfu with all this bullshit. Assad is 100% responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and must be stopped. Look at you, a little kid acting like he knows more than the USA's own intelligence. Stfu and get a life you nutjob.

[code green]

Didn't say there is no oil I'm sayjng we're going in with a clear plan. With Bush and Iraq, we just went into Iraq with no clear cut plan on how to find Osama or anything. We ended up Nation building and so on, it was kinda rushed. This time with Obama, we have a plan and a clear cut motive to help the rebels against Assad. It has nothing to do with oil, it's about stopping a ruthless dictator. Now stfu with all this bullshit. Assad is 100% responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and must be stopped. Look at you, a little kid acting like he knows more than the USA's own intelligence. Stfu and get a life you nutjob.

Look at you, acting like you know more about how Syrians feel than people (including myself) in this thread that actually know people currently in or just left Syria.

[ihoopallday]

Stay safe and if they send you, do whatever you have to do to get back home.

Thank you :cheers:

[ihoopallday]

Fingers crossed you get to stay in the USA.

Yeah. I'm ok with it. It's my family that's worried. Guess that's normal though.

[Nick Young]

Didn't say there is no oil I'm sayjng we're going in with a clear plan. With Bush and Iraq, we just went into Iraq with no clear cut plan on how to find Osama or anything. We ended up Nation building and so on, it was kinda rushed. This time with Obama, we have a plan and a clear cut motive to help the rebels against Assad. It has nothing to do with oil, it's about stopping a ruthless dictator. Now stfu with all this bullshit. Assad is 100% responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and must be stopped. Look at you, a little kid acting like he knows more than the USA's own intelligence. Stfu and get a life you nutjob.
Look at you, naive jackass thinking he's a clever guy XD.

There is zero evidence that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. If there was evidence, it would be publicized as a justification for Obama to pull out executive powers and go straight to war no questions asked.

Does it make sense to you that Assad violates Obama's no chemical gas ultimatum only 2 weeks after he made it? is Assad a complete moron trying to drag a super power in to a war against him? You are incredibly naive and simple. Grow up kid. The world isn't a disney movie with goodies and baddies.

Iraq had a clear cut plan-get rid of Sadam, they did that within a few months and guess what, we're still there 12 years later!

Afghanistan was the hunt for Osama war.

OBAMA HAS NO CLEAR CUT PLAN. Don't fool yourself. He is just as incompetent as Bush when it comes to military strategy. If we go in to Syria it will not end for years.


If Assad is so evil, why do 70% of the Syrian population SUPPORT ASSAD?

It was only 55% before the Civil war started two years ago. Do you know what that means? The Syrian people REALLY DON'T LIKE THE REBELS.

The leader of one rebel group filmed himself cutting out a dead Syrian's heart and eating it. That is the side that America wants to help. Do you think they are the good guys? Only 30% of the people currently support them. Why is it America's job to put them in to power?

[KevinNYC]

Does it make sense to you that Assad violates Obama's no chemical gas ultimatum only 2 weeks after he made it?

Where do you get your information? Two weeks?

Are you talking about the Aug 21 2013 attack? or about an earlier Assad attack, one that took place about a year ago when Obama made his comments?

[MavsSuperFan]

So current Assad should be blamed and held accountable for the actions of his father now?:confusedshrug:

70% of Syrians support Assad.(http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/) There is zero proof that he is responsible for the latest chemical weapons attack. Who are we to intervene here?

Never said we should intervene just saying Assad in absolute terms is a bad guy. 2 completely unrelated Ideas.

I find the 70% surprising, and somewhat doubtful, but nonetheless I maintain that Assad is a bad person, that is all I have ever argued in this thread.


MavsSuperFan your wrong most of the people in this thread disagree with your I will take Assad over Al qaeda any day.

I completely agree with you.

To me whether we should intervene or not is a completely separate issue to whether Assad is a bad guy.



I dont support intervening in Syria, but this is an extremely biased interpretation. There are many legitimate reasons the Sunni population want Assad removed.

[HarryCallahan]

I dont support intervening in Syria, but this is an extremely biased interpretation.


:D

[Nick Young]

Never said we should intervene just saying Assad in absolute terms is a bad guy. 2 completely unrelated Ideas.

I find the 70% surprising, and somewhat doubtful, but nonetheless I maintain that Assad is a bad person, that is all I have ever argued in this thread.



I completely agree with you.

To me whether we should intervene or not is a completely separate issue to whether Assad is a bad guy.
The 70% figure came from a NATO poll.
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/



Obama is a bad person. Angela Merkel is a bad person. David Cameron is a bad person, all of these leaders are horrible people, that if seen through another lens are easily comparable to Assad in terms of being 'bad'. Obama especially, it would be easy to argue that he is worse then Assad.


More people are dead in wars directly under Obama's watch then Assads. You can't say Bush is to blame, Obama has sent more troops in to Iraq and Afghanistan then Bush did though.

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drone-attacks-deaths-bush-vs-obama.jpg

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/obamavsbush.jpg

http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Bush_Obama_SinCity.jpg

[9erempiree]

First and foremost, who cares what another nation's dictator is doing. He's fighting against rebels/terrorists to protect his right as leader of his country.

Secondly, this is probably the most important thing here and I believe people in the world are neglecting it. Why do you think the world history there have been crazy dictators in the middle east? To keep the extreme religious groups in check.

The world needs a Saddam/Mubarak/Assad to keep these religious groups in check. We all know these Muslims are extremist in the name of god. Once you give these people more freedom, there would be more unrest.

Look how great Iraq is with democracy. Look at Egypt and perhaps the future of Syria. Once these dictators get ousted, the country is worst. Instead of the people living in fear and quietly, there are more violence now because people are speaking more freely and it's going to clash with so many groups.

[Mr Know It All]

Beyond the absurd moralistic bullshit Obama and the Americans are spewing, there still is no concrete proof that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. All we have is grainy footage and the word of American insiders, and naturally of Israel. This sources desperately want Assad ousted to bolster their push to isolate Iran, so how can we expect them to be truthful?

Assad bombing his civilians only helps the rebels and their globalist allies. There is no rhyme or reason to such a move. Never mind the fact that the rebels behead civilians, use chemical gas themselves, and are not wanted by the Syrian population.

Assad has some powerful allies right now (Russia, China, Iran) and are quite clearly in front in the war. The USA has already missed the boat when it comes to a potential strike, as Assad has moved all of his equipment into civilian areas (sounds crude, but is a strategically sound move and justifiable in the face of globalist interference).

[tomtucker]

First and foremost, who cares what another nation's dictator is doing. He's fighting against rebels/terrorists to protect his right as leader of his country.

Secondly, this is probably the most important thing here and I believe people in the world are neglecting it. Why do you think the world history there have been crazy dictators in the middle east? To keep the extreme religious groups in check.

The world needs a Saddam/Mubarak/Assad to keep these religious groups in check. We all know these Muslims are extremist in the name of god. Once you give these people more freedom, there would be more unrest.

Look how great Iraq is with democracy. Look at Egypt and perhaps the future of Syria. Once these dictators get ousted, the country is worst. Instead of the people living in fear and quietly, there are more violence now because people are speaking more freely and it's going to clash with so many groups.

all absolutely correct........

[tomtucker]

Beyond the absurd moralistic bullshit Obama and the Americans are spewing, there still is no concrete proof that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. All we have is grainy footage and the word of American insiders, and naturally of Israel. This sources desperately want Assad ousted to bolster their push to isolate Iran, so how can we expect them to be truthful?

Assad bombing his civilians only helps the rebels and their globalist allies. There is no rhyme or reason to such a move. Never mind the fact that the rebels behead civilians, use chemical gas themselves, and are not wanted by the Syrian population.

Assad has some powerful allies right now (Russia, China, Iran) and are quite clearly in front in the war. The USA has already missed the boat when it comes to a potential strike, as Assad has moved all of his equipment into civilian areas (sounds crude, but is a strategically sound move and justifiable in the face of globalist interference).

true........and america likes threatening people and nations, what if putin and russia says: attack syria and we will attack you, then what little obama ?

[Derka]

true........and america likes threatening people and nations, what if putin and russia says: attack syria and we will attack you, then what little obama ?
Wouldn't happen. This isn't a WW1 scenario of entangled alliances and treaties forcing everybody's hand.

It couldn't be plainer that Putin and the Iranians have no respect for Obama's bluster. Obama was a law professor...Putin was a goddamn Cold War spy. They see a bloviating, half-hearted windbag in our President and to be honest, nothing he's said or done since Syria went to hell in a hand basket has given the world reason to believe otherwise.

Either the evidence of this chemical attack is shoddy and not actionable...or Obama is praying that everyone over there blinks at some point, which so far...they aren't. Meanwhile, motherf*cker is blinking so hard he's speaking in Morae code.

[MavsSuperFan]

true........and america likes threatening people and nations, what if putin and russia says: attack syria and we will attack you, then what little obama ?

The russians would never back themselves into a corner like that.

If they did they would be fools. We would attack Syria and they wouldnt want to attack us.

More likely Russia responds to us attacking Assad's forces by attacking the rebels.


Wouldn't happen. This isn't a WW1 scenario of entangled alliances and treaties forcing everybody's hand.

It couldn't be plainer that Putin and the Iranians have no respect for Obama's bluster. Obama was a law professor...Putin was a goddamn Cold War spy. They see a bloviating, half-hearted windbag in our President and to be honest, nothing he's said or done since Syria went to hell in a hand basket has given the world reason to believe otherwise.

Either the evidence of this chemical attack is shoddy and not actionable...or Obama is praying that everyone over there blinks at some point, which so far...they aren't. Meanwhile, motherf*cker is blinking so hard he's speaking in Morae code.

Whether Putin respects obama or not is irrelevant, he would be a fool not to respect the US air force or the US Navy.

[Dresta]

Germany/Canada/France/UK need to invade the US then moron.

Obama assassinated this American:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

And also his 17y.o son and 16y.o nephew

http://warincontext.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Abdulrahman-al-Awlaki.jpg
Good. The guy was a scumbag intent on blowing up random civilians for his jihadist bullshit. It's hard not to kill their children when these scumbags purposefully hide behind them for propaganda purposes.

[travelingman]

Another instance of the U.S. using a humanitarian talking point to enter a war for very different reasons. I cannot say for certain what those reasons are, but I am sure that, unless the U.S. government has secretly committed itself to the safeguarding of all citizens across the world with guarantees of universal human rights (it hasn't), they are not strictly for humanitarian reasons or based solely on the fact that Syria used chemical weapons. It's a good pretext to take action because the world views chemical weapons as something that should be contained and the Ghouta attacks are deplorable by any measure. However, we should take into consideration the U.S. actions with regards to usage of chemical weapons and support for those countries that have recklessly used them. Go back to Iraq in its eight-year conflict with its Persian neighbor. The CIA was supporting Hussein even while it was aware of the Iraqi government-orchestrated Halabja attack, a single massacre of Iraqi Kurds which resulted in more deaths than the September 11 attacks (THIS SHOULD MAKE PEOPLE ANGRY!!). When Iraq was using white phosphorous during the Gulf War, the U.S. considered it a "chemical weapon". Fast forward to the Iraq War of the 21st century, when the U.S. is using the same material on civilians, and it's now a conventional weapon, although the effects it has left on the indigenous population should be a testament to the contrary. The U.S. also has no problem with its own companies exporting chemical weapons to its allies. Its only when our enemies use them that we feel the need to criticize them. This tactic of selective criticism is not entirely unlike Jimmy Carter's talking point of human rights while in office (different from his post-presidency human rights advocacy).

[tomtucker]

The russians would never back themselves into a corner like that.

If they did they would be fools. We would attack Syria and they wouldnt want to attack us.

More likely Russia responds to us attacking Assad's forces by attacking the rebels.



Whether Putin respects obama or not is irrelevant, he would be a fool not to respect the US air force or the US Navy.

would be nice

[tomtucker]

Good. The guy was a scumbag intent on blowing up random civilians for his jihadist bullshit. It's hard not to kill their children when these scumbags purposefully hide behind them for propaganda purposes.

true.......allways hiding behind civilians, and then cry foul when something happens to said civilians

[Godzuki]

lol i'll never agree with the shit most of the people on ISH say about international politics. I swear most of ya'll got shit completely backwards and fukked up but its not even worth arguing wall of txts since a lot of it is a bit convoluted.

[East_Stone_Ya]

Assad will be left alone since there is common enemy in ISIS now

[KevinNYC]

Assad will be left alone since there is common enemy in ISIS now (http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631)

If your conclusion is true and this story is true, you can see Assad's logic.
[QUOTE]Mohammed Al-Saud is under no illusions. “In 2011, the majority of the current ISIS leadership was released from jail by Bashar Al Assad,” he said. “No one in the regime has ever admitted this, or explained why.” Al-Saud, a Syrian dissident with the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, left Syria under threat of arrest in 2011.

Others were not so lucky. In 2006, Syrian Tarek Alghorani was sentenced to seven years in jail for the contents of his blog. Since his amnesty in 2011, he has been an active opponent of the Damascus regime. “There were around 1,500 people in there,” he recalls, outside a sleepy midtown caf

[Marlo_Stanfield]

he will only be killed if America decides they are interested in it.
like every other dictator.

[MavsSuperFan]

he will only be killed if America decides they are interested in it.
like every other dictator.
tons of pro american dictators get overthrown.

Mubarak, the Shah of Iran, pinochet, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, etc.

[brownmamba00]

lol i'll never agree with the shit most of the people on ISH say about international politics. I swear most of ya'll got shit completely backwards and fukked up but its not even worth arguing wall of txts since a lot of it is a bit convoluted.
It's disturbing really...it's like they're brainwashed or some shit