Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what had assad to gain from using chemical weapons , he is winning the war against the islamist rebel opposition , using chemical weapons gives the west the excuse it needs to remove assad , assad is hardly that stupid
what had assad to gain from using chemical weapons , he is winning the war against the islamist rebel opposition , using chemical weapons gives the west the excuse it needs to remove assad , assad is hardly that stupid
this whole thing stinks , Russia are right
I fixed it. I don't think Assad did it either. I think it's the rebels.
I fixed it. I don't think Assad did it either. I think it's the rebels.
so either Obama and co are dumb or they have an ulterior motive , attacking Syria might be about sending a message to iran , lousy but the republicans will attack iran if they ever get in anyway so this might be the least worst option
ps , attacking assad is effectively aiding al qaeeda who are vehemently opposed to the Damascus leadership
Cui bono is the idea that the responsibility for an act can usually be determined by asking who stands to gain as a result of the act. It's first recorded in a speech by Cicero attributing it to the Roman consul Lucius Cassius. If he were speaking today he would say: Follow the money.
This is just one possible narrative based on the principle:
If you are a rebel, odds are you have alliances with other rebels. Odds are that alliance is based only on a common enemy. Odds are that once the common enemy is removed, they will become your rival. Since the rebels are not making any head way, a great all around solution is to eliminate a rival while making your main enemy a scape goat.
That is the kind of motivation that makes sense, but it could be anyone who wants a power vacuum. Israel for one would love Syria to go down. Same with the Saudis.
The act has little military value from the Assad position. Its a great political asset for the regime's enemies. I smell a rat.
I have been saying that there are three sides to this war. Assad is battling the SFA and the rebels. The only thing that the SFA has in common with the rebels is to overthrow Assad. Once that happens the rebels would turn on the SFA because they have different end results. It's been said that the rebels and the SFA were losing the battle. It makes sense that the rebels would be the ones to use the chemical weapons and then claim it was from Assad. And it seems that the US is being very quick to jump on the deflection, which is to blame Assad.
There is no hard proof as to who used the chemical weapons, the same as when there was a claim that recin was used several months ago (killing 150 people) and that was the initial purpose of the investigators being in Syria when this attack occurred, except they couldn't get access to investigate. At that time it was determined by the UN investigators that the rebels used it but Obama was claiming it was Assad. Maybe the proof was very strong that it was the rebels and that's why Obama didn't react?
Why is Obama being quick to react now? The investigation just started and there has been no announcement because no determination has been made - other than confirmation that chemical weapons were used. What hard proof does Obama have, other than strong speculation and some kind of proof he claims he has but has yet to release that it was the Assad regime that used the chemicals? The rebels claiming it was Assad is not "proof". I guess blaming Assad is Obama's way of not having to justify that the US was arming rebels and cannot say for sure that they were arming the "right" rebels.
Obama is pulling the UK into this very quickly, as did Bush with Iraq.
Cui bono is the idea that the responsibility for an act can usually be determined by asking who stands to gain as a result of the act. It's first recorded in a speech by Cicero attributing it to the Roman consul Lucius Cassius. If he were speaking today he would say: Follow the money.
This is just one possible narrative based on the principle:
If you are a rebel, odds are you have alliances with other rebels. Odds are that alliance is based only on a common enemy. Odds are that once the common enemy is removed, they will become your rival. Since the rebels are not making any head way, a great all around solution is to eliminate a rival while making your main enemy a scape goat.
That is the kind of motivation that makes sense, but it could be anyone who wants a power vacuum. Israel for one would love Syria to go down. Same with the Saudis.
The act has little military value from the Assad position. Its a great political asset for the regime's enemies. I smell a rat.
Agreed except on Israel. Israel isn't afraid of Syria and actually benefits from Assad remaining in power. While Syria functions as a conduit for weapons and training to radical groups and terrorists in Lebanon and so on, were Syria to ever attack Syria, it's destruction is assured. Assad doesn't want that either.
We've taken our eye off the ball because of failed policies and stonewalled efforts elsewhere.
Suddenly you hear nothing about Iran. It used to be the headline news because there were lines drawn in the sand which now are little more than blurry images. Egypt is also now secondary because for all the boasting of an Arab Spring, the reality is akin to an after the bombing winter. Libya, well what have you heard from there lately? We got Gadaffi to dismantle his efforts for nuke capabilities and and designs he may have had on expansion or more influence and then as usual, threw him to the wolves and none of them are kind to the lambs. There was a real chance there, he was old and wasn't going to live forever and there would have been far more influence over one of his sons than what exists there now. We threw that away because a military victory was assured, in concert we took out their military and now have no idea where any of the hardware went. Heard that before?
Then Egypt, where after the joy and boasting and welcoming, the MB took over and we weren't really prepared for that. We all celebrated Tweets and Facebook pages courtesy of connections from Google's execs but the time for influence was lost, we looked away yet again and sat there while the MB rushed in. The result? Now we slice up words like Coup as if we were talking about the word "it". The Egyptian military know now if they didn't before that fair weather friends are a dime a dozen. We aren't going to recover what we've lost there in our lifetimes.
We keep pushing and if we push enough what we'll end up with is a unified region and it isn't going to care about the USA or it's allies in Western Europe, there are lots of alternatives which is something we are starting to have less of every day and every time we bomb someone.
Iran is now busy, very busy and mark my words, they will announce they have a nuclear weapon and use it not to bomb anyone, least of all the USA or Israel, but to create a rallying point that pushes them into a far more important leadership position than we could have imagined. You see, a nuclear weapon doesn't do Iran any good if they use it. They know it, we know it and so does everyone else. Make no mistake about it, they won't build just one either, only fools would do such a thing. You build two just in case Israel makes good on hitting Iran in that eventuality. What can Israel do? So Israel hits Iran. Then what? Israel is going to wipe out all of Iran? It can't, not on it's best day in Disney Land. Within minutes of Israel hitting Iran you will see an alliance of the Russians, the Chinese in a lesser role and a hoarde of everyone and anyone we've ever hurt stand up for Iran. There will be pictures of dead children, burned beyond recognition, entire families plastered on TV. Not the TV of NBC, CBS and ABC but the TV where things like that are seen, not filtered because some TV exec knows best what you should or should not see and hear.
Iran's nuke will become the Arab nuke. It will announce that it, not the USA is the protector of everything Arab or of the middle east. So who then is going to hit Iran? Not the USA for sure. Remember, they will build two and we might get one. Hitting Iran simply gives them the reason to hit back and not with some kid with backpack on a crowded street in New York either. The days of a country shuddering because we said we'd bomb them are over and have been for a long time. The Vietnamese didn't shudder. Irag didn't shudder even though we made good on bombing them to near the stone age, the Taliban didn't shudder even though Mr. President basically challenged them to hit us by saying they weren't capable of mounting a sophisticated attack against US interest, and then promptly ordered all foreign US embassies shuttered. Uh huh. Nothing like daring someone to do you harm right?
The what happens when after our bombing or whatever of Syria, the Iranians and the rebels in Syria decide to have coffee and talk? What then? You think the Israelis are nervous now what until then and see how nervous they get. All is well though because when that happens, US military contractors will see their stocks go through the roof. Great for the economy, or at least the part you have no part in.
The Saudis? Can't forget them, the same dictatorial mess we accuse everyone else of being except they wear western clothes when traveling and their whites are always the brightest whites. Maybe we can get them to "help" Egypt to offset Iran. Great. Well, we can always count of the Egyptians to stay away from Israel right? Of course, we've done so much to help them and debts are always repaid. But think about that because just where does the military hardware that feeds the Saudis and will then feed the Egyptian military come from? US Military contractors, where else? Yes, we aren't going to let the Sadui's go down the same road as the Egyptians are we? Look at our track record. We had Gadaffi who practically begged to become a pseudo ally and we did so much for him. Faced with a nuke capable Iran who will quickly gather up all the disillusioned to be protected by the only admitted nuke capable country in the middle east, the Saudi's aren't going to use their credit card to buy one too? Somehow their seeing what happened to everyone we've "helped" isn't enough of an incentive to rethink alliances?
You know, it is one thing to wean off children so to speak and remove the dependencies that foster resentment and outright confrontations. It is quite another to get the children, so to speak again, to hate you as you do it and then end up enemies. We seem to have not gotten the memo.
In all of this, just question who "we" is. There are those who look down upon others and they think they are the "we" and use that term to mock inclusion. What they are really thinking in "we" know and let's hope "they" never figure it out. Guess who "they" are?
You know how you start watching a film, and the plot just seems to be going nowhere, and yet you keep saying to yourself that maybe it will get better? But it doesn't, and then the movie ends and all you could say is, that was one STUPID film! That's the Iraq war for me. When Bush went in, I though there must be some thing to it, some inside knowledge of something terrible, like an impending attack on us using Saddam's secret arsenal of beastly wmd's, anything justifying what we were doing. But of course, that wasn't the case, and we just started some bs war which cost us a ton of dough and lives, opened up a can of worms with Iran which Iraq was buffering prior to all this, detracted from our war effort in A'stan, just a ton of other consequences that...well, this post could go off in a bunch of tangents.
Anyways, that's what this Syria thing is now. No clear proof of who did what with the chemical weapons, nor who exactly it is that we're siding with against Assad, or what the consequences of all that would be. I'm sick of these stupid films.
so either Obama and co are dumb or they have an ulterior motive , attacking Syria might be about sending a message to iran , lousy but the republicans will attack iran if they ever get in anyway so this might be the least worst option
ps , attacking assad is effectively aiding al qaeeda who are vehemently opposed to the Damascus leadership
Let the Syrians figure it out. No money to Syria. No military action. Ignore them and maybe they'll just kill each other.
The warships are in place, the missiles are loaded and they are just waiting on the President to say "press the button".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
