Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

US, Arab allies launch first wave of strikes in Syria


Bure to Mogilny

Recommended Posts

I can't believe people. It ain't about Assad or Syria. It's never been about either one of those...at least on that level, it's about; location, location, location. FFS people...look at a world map...the US has systematically in the last 15 years or so taken over countries in the area.....Syria is the last one needed to fully surround Iran. If they take Syria don't be surprised if Iran is next.

That's why Iran will support Syria if ground troops from the states attack it. Also Russia has said it will never allow world bankers or corporations to run it and is a leader on trying to get the world away from the American dollar system(see; BRICS) that's why Putin is being demonized by media.

Iran would be their toughest challenge because of how much influence it has in the region... It would be a similar situation to the US trying to invade Saudi Arabia. Both countries have support in different parts of the Arab world. Not to mention Russia and China supporting Iran.

But I disagree with the bold text. If that was the case we would have seen Iran being invaded a long time ago.. Syria and Iran aren't connected to each other, unlike Iraq.

Even with a US backed Iraqi government the Iranians have had very friendly relations because of the Shia government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran would be their toughest challenge because of how much influence it has in the region... It would be a similar situation to the US trying to invade Saudi Arabia. Both countries have support in different parts of the Arab world. Not to mention Russia and China supporting Iran.

But I disagree with the bold text. If that was the case we would have seen Iran being invaded a long time ago.. Syria and Iran aren't connected to each other, unlike Iraq.

Even with a US backed Iraqi government the Iranians have had very friendly relations because of the Shia government.

How are they not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations.

I guess you mean that they don't share borders?

The West has been looking for every excuse to attack Iran for a very long time..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Isis/Syrian rebel story is playing out like something out of 1984.

Last year: "Syrian Rebels (The Islamic State) are good and we are with them. We have always been with the Syrian Rebels and their quest for freedom."

This year: "The Islamic State (Syrian Rebels) are evil and we are against them. We have always been against the Islamic State and their quest against freedom."

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

If the US was going to full-out invade Syria, they would have done so last year. They can't. The Russians and Chinese are in alliance with them.

If the US was going to invade Iran they would have done so long ago. They can't. The Russians and Chinese are in alliance with them.

Neither are options now. They tried a proven regime change method in Syria, but it failed. And the cleanup is just going to breed more terrorists.

Any more countries to take over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add this as food for thought...

"It may surprise you to know thatRussia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called theElectoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives a majority of popular votes wins the election."

"The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution."

Great... so the guys that lie to us in state ad campaigns can just vote for whoever and not bother counting my vote unless its an electoral tie? QUICK let me run out and vote!!!!

Did you know.. if I ran an ad campaign on you tube and EVERY SINGLE NON-GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED vote was for me... i still wouldnt be president? The Electoral college would just vote for the next george bush.... WOO!

Go ahead and vote... but the government will just do what it wants anyway.

Were gonna need something bigger than our votes to reel in our government....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to add this as food for thought...

"It may surprise you to know thatRussia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called theElectoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives a majority of popular votes wins the election."

"The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution."

Great... so the guys that lie to us in state ad campaigns can just vote for whoever and not bother counting my vote unless its an electoral tie? QUICK let me run out and vote!!!!

Did you know.. if I ran an ad campaign on you tube and EVERY SINGLE NON-GOVERNMENT-APPOINTED vote was for me... i still wouldnt be president? The Electoral college would just vote for the next george bush.... WOO!

Go ahead and vote... but the government will just do what it wants anyway.

Were gonna need something bigger than our votes to reel in our government....

Crappy politicians aside, everyone knows the only true democratic country in the world is Canada.. India is close, but has too much corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crappy politicians aside, everyone knows the only true democratic country in the world is Canada.. India is close, but has too much corruption.

Canada is also very corrupt. Look no further than at our puppet Prime Minister.

Switzerland is the most "true" democracy. There's a decent article about that here : http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/03/07/the-only-direct-true-democracy-in-the-world/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is also very corrupt. Look no further than at our puppet Prime Minister.

Switzerland is the most "true" democracy. There's a decent article about that here : http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/03/07/the-only-direct-true-democracy-in-the-world/

Under a ranked democracy index, both Canada and Switzerland are are among the top ranked countries.

Of course the country I live in isn't ranked as high, even though if you ask a Tea Party member, they'll argue the point until they're blue in the face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_index_by_country

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, the US created some of the conditions that lead to ISIS's success in Iraq and Syria. That being said, now that ISIS is there, and is committing horrible atrocities, what do you figure the US should do? Let genocide happen? They have gotten France and several Arab countries on board. I don't see what the issue is with bombing the likes of ISIS.

Either way, if the US intervenes, they get blamed for being war hungry/police of the world etc... etc... and if they decide not to intervene they are accused of turning a blind eye/standing by while hundreds of thousands are murdered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, the US created some of the conditions that lead to ISIS's success in Iraq and Syria. That being said, now that ISIS is there, and is committing horrible atrocities, what do you figure the US should do? Let genocide happen? They have gotten France and several Arab countries on board. I don't see what the issue is with bombing the likes of ISIS.

Either way, if the US intervenes, they get blamed for being war hungry/police of the world etc... etc... and if they decide not to intervene they are accused of turning a blind eye/standing by while hundreds of thousands are murdered.

Several Arab Nations are on board, make the Arab nations take care of it themselves. It's their region. Outside of those people, virtually no one in MENA believes the US is out to help anyone. I don't speak on behalf of US foreign policy, moreover, I speak out of concern for American citizens whose government are far more a threat via blowback (aka 9/11's) than any perceived threat of terrorism that didn't already derive as a result of US foreign policy the last handful of decades.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=191

Not that U.S. officials have noticed. Members of America’s foreign-policy elite apparently see themselves as the anointed spokesmen for the “international community,” whatever that is. No matter what they do, they act as if they are implementing justice and truth, if not the American Way. Alas, many people on the receiving end of U.S. policy have a different perception.

America is an empire. As Chalmers Johnson puts it in his new book Blowback, “Perhaps the Romans did not find it strange to have her troops in Gaul, nor the British in South Africa”. But such foreign commitments were considered alien to America throughout most of its history. That tradition was abandoned during the Cold War, but only for compelling reasons. Now the Cold War is over, and, observes Johnson,

the one subject beyond discussion… is the fact that, a decade after the end of the Cold War, hundreds of thousands of American troops, supplied with the world’s most advanced weaponry, sometimes including nuclear arms, are stationed on over sixty-one base complexes in nineteen countries worldwide, using the Department of Defense’s narrowest definition of a “major installation”; if one included every kind of installation that houses representatives of the American military, the number would rise to over eight hundred.

Unfortunately, the cost of this policy is high, despite U.S. policymakers’ denials. As Johnson writes, “For any empire, including an unacknowledged one, there is a kind of balance sheet that builds up over time”.

Among the costs is what he terms blowback—“the unintended consequences of policies”. One obvious form of blowback is terrorism. Johnson points to the 1988 Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which was probably retaliation for the attack on Libya two years before, and to the bombing of New York’s World Trade Center and the attacks on U.S. facilities in Africa and the Mideast. And such attacks continue: the attack on the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen, last fall was likely a response to Washington’s attempt to extend its reach to even that distant nation by establishing intelligence facilities.

Johnson’s discussion of terrorism should be required reading for every foreign-policy official in the new administration. Terrorism rarely occurs in an international vacuum. For the most part, foreign countries and gangs do not kill Americans for pleasure. Rather, they do so to wage what they view as war.

Writing of Osama bin Laden, Johnson notes that he “only turned against the United States in 1991 because he regarded the stationing of American troops in his native Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War as a violation of his religious beliefs. Thus, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, if they were indeed his work, are an instance of blowback rather than unprovoked terrorism”. The solution, then, is not to strike out blindly with military strikes. As Johnson notes, “Instead of bombing sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in response, the United States might better have considered reducing or removing our large-scale and provocative military presence in Saudi Arabia”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama vows more strikes on ISIL in Syria

US president says combined operation targeting the armed group in Syria shows the US is not fighting alone.

Barack Obama has said that the participation of five Arab nations in air raids against ISIL in Syria "makes it clear to the world this is not America's fight alone".

The US president on Tuesday promised to continue the fight, which he said was vital to the security of his country, the Middle East and the world.

"Once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people," he said.

He added the joint fight against ISIL would take time, and promised to build more international support for the effort.

The American-led coalition conducted more than 200 air strikes on Tuesday against roughly two dozen targets in northern and eastern Syria.

ISIL controls a vast stretch of territory spanning the Syrian-Iraqi frontier and are fighting to expand the boundaries of their self-declared Islamic "caliphate". The UN has accused the group of committing atrocities in both countries.

Opposition critical

The US-led campaign against ISIL has met with mixed reaction from Syria's multitude of rebel brigades, many of whom have been locked in a deadly fight with ISIL since January. But the rebels' ultimate goal is to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while the US is focused on defeating the ISIL.

On Wednesday, the main Western-backed Syrian opposition group criticised the American-led air strikes for being limited to ISIL and other self-declared jihadists while leaving Assad's government untouched.

"We regret that the international community has come up with partial solutions to the Syrian conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed or detained by the Assad regime,'' said Nasr al-Hariri, secretary-general of the Syrian National Coalition.

Besides ISIL, the raids also hit al-Qaeda's branch in Syria, known as the Nusra Front, which has fought against ISIL. Washington considers it a terrorist group that threatens the US.

Syria's ambassador to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, told Al Jazeera that his US counterpart, Samantha Power, had informed him on the strike in advance.

Obama said the US was proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the UAE in conducting the air raids.

More here:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/obama-vows-more-strikes-isil-syria-20149231420498126.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several Arab Nations are on board, make the Arab nations take care of it themselves. It's their region. Outside of those people, virtually no one in MENA believes the US is out to help anyone. I don't speak on behalf of US foreign policy, moreover, I speak out of concern for American citizens whose government are far more a threat via blowback (aka 9/11's) than any perceived threat of terrorism that didn't already derive as a result of US foreign policy the last handful of decades.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=191

Agreed, sort of. But I do think that the success of ISIS will have a positive impact on their recruitment in foreign countries. This is slightly different from Al Qaeda, where hatred for the US & Co. was the primary motivator for recruitment. With ISIS, some young punks just want to join a winning team that they can relate to. If ISIS fails, the threat of homeland terrorist attacks would be lower than if they continue to succeed, IMHO.

But yes, ultimately, we should model our foreign policy after China.

If she takes her clothes off, I'll watch.

I wouldn't bother....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole Isis/Syrian rebel story is playing out like something out of 1984.

Last year: "Syrian Rebels (The Islamic State) are good and we are with them. We have always been with the Syrian Rebels and their quest for freedom."

This year: "The Islamic State (Syrian Rebels) are evil and we are against them. We have always been against the Islamic State and their quest against freedom."

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

If the US was going to full-out invade Syria, they would have done so last year. They can't. The Russians and Chinese are in alliance with them.

If the US was going to invade Iran they would have done so long ago. They can't. The Russians and Chinese are in alliance with them.

Neither are options now. They tried a proven regime change method in Syria, but it failed. And the cleanup is just going to breed more terrorists.

Any more countries to take over?

Not sure why you're referring to the rebels as one homogenous group. There are moderate rebels who genuinely want positive change. I'm not sure where this notion that supporting "rebels" means supporting ISIS. Yes, ISIS is one type of rebel, but there are plenty of good guys in there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you're referring to the rebels as one homogenous group. There are moderate rebels who genuinely want positive change. I'm not sure where this notion that supporting "rebels" means supporting ISIS. Yes, ISIS is one type of rebel, but there are plenty of good guys in there too.

I don't know about that... Seems like they're all playing a game until someone gains power. Look no further to post Gadafii Libya...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...