7 ms·

First, that conspiracy theory has fucking nothing to do with my point, you just reacted with your ideological hate where USA is worse than WMD using tyrants (oh

by berntb 13y ago

First, that conspiracy theory has fucking nothing to do with my point, you just reacted with your ideological hate where USA is worse than WMD using tyrants (oh yeah, you deny the chemical weapons in another comment, assuming France, Israel and US to be in a conspiracy). Second, ah, no... I have a bit of a life. Go defend the rapers, thieves, mass murderers etc etc to get a rise out of someone else. (Are you part of the Syrian "50 cent army"?)

foobarqux 13y ago
I never said the US gov is worse than Syria gov. I never advanced an ideology. In other comments which you refer to I simply stated that there really isn't any evidence that has been presented as to what chemicals were used if any and by whom. Compelling evidence seems like one sensible precondition for starting a war. Finally, my statement that the US doesn't care about Syrians is germane to your point: You can't expect their situation to improve if those who claim that they effect that change don't actually care.
- berntb 13y ago
  Enough. Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. Again: Are you in a Syrian or Iranian 50 cent army? Or are you one of those leftwing extremists that never support a democracy against a dictator? Like many others all over the internet now, you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without. Again: You argue there is a conspiracy with Israeli, US, French information lying. You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. (Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus. And that French and US intelligence would both lie is a conspiracy.) Is it worse to torture and rape children -- or to defend such people dishonestly...?
  - pipy 13y ago
    When we are discussing the issue of Syria bombardment, it is a good idea to address these questions separately: 1. Justification (legal and moral). -a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons? -b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value? -c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN? 2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large). -a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments? -b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties? 1. Justification 1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved. 1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1] 1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2] During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN. Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this). If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3] As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution. 2. Consequences 2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4] 2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_c... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933 [4] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-strikes-against-syria-as-questions-swirl-about-endgame/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-st... P.S. There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation. [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321200
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    I don't defend the Syrian government. Is it not possible to say that there is not yet any compelling evidence about who used weapons in Ghouta and what those weapons were without supporting the Syrian government? And likewise to state that the goals of the US are not humanitarian? And of course there is a conspiracy: These are allies acting for substantial mutual benefit just as Iran, Russia and China are conspiring. We saw similar concerted misinformation in Iraq and Libya, both of which are much worse off after their humanitarian-bombardment. > Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. DWB do not have members in the area. They received second hand reports of fairly non-specific symptoms that they said would be consistent with a chemical attack. Moreover, they were adamant that they could not determine who launched the attack. > The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus I know nothing about artillery positions but I as far as I know a method of delivery has not been established.
    - berntb 13y ago
      >>I don't defend the Syrian government. As I wrote in what you comment on: "Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. [...] you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without." I just note you missed a third(!) chance to condemn... A member in an Iranian/Syrian "50 cent army" would write just what you write. (Does that make you proud?) I would like to touch your arguments too, but... You are certain France, Israel and USA are in a conspiracy and lie (despite all the leaks). And that all the western media are in on the conspiracy and keep the truth away from the "sheeple". Not much to say, since that isn't falsifiable; it explains every argument anyone can write, you can just stay with the media which write extremist conspiracy theories... (As an additional note -- the method of delivery might be hard to establish with the large shelling from the Assad artillery after the gas attack. But that is probably just another lie? :-) )
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        I didn't take the opportunity to condemn because it wasn't relevant to my point which was independent of anyone's feelings on the Syrian government. But to make you happy: I condemn the atrocities committed by the Syrian government. And to make you less happy: Without making a comparison or equivalence, I condemn the atrocities committed by rebel forces and the US government. I am not certain of anything. Allied forces have strong incentives to mislead, as does the media in those countries, and we have recent historical evidence showing that they have done so in other cases (Iraq, Libya). It is simply not a defensible position to assert that governments don't mislead, even in concert. Your argument seems to boil down to "the government wouldn't lie to me" when we have seen that they would. And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence. To be clear the Syrian government may, at a later date, be proved to have used chemical weapons. But that still wouldn't make the fact that, right now, there is no compelling evidence to support such a claim. Unjustified belief is not knowledge.
  - pipy 13y ago
    Answering here, so that my reply to your post [1] won't get squeezed. [PART 1] Just in case: I believe in your sincerity and want for the truth, and didn't mean to offend you in any way. >Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low. No, I've opened the actual article by Amnesty that is linked in Wikipedia near the figure, and on pages 10 and 11 it states this: Since the outbreak of pro-reform protests in Fe bruary 2011 and of mass protests calling for the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad and his government, in particular after the security forces first shot dead several demonstrators in Dera’a on 18 March 2011, Amnesty International has received the names of more than 10,000 people – mainly men and boys -who have been killed during the unrest, although the actual figure may be considerably higher. The evidence collected in the Aleppo and Idlib governorates, including the Jebel al-Zawiyah and Jebel al-Wastani areas, shows that hundreds, possibly more, have been deliberately killed at close range. While some of the victims were active in the opposition, many of them were killed unlawfully after having been taken captive; others appear to have been targeted simply because they were living in opposition-held areas and as such may have been considered supporters of armed opposition groups, including those linked to the FSA. Others were reportedly killed simply because soldiers wanted to take revenge on people from the area and/or could not find those they were looking for. [2] That is not to say that Assad is not to be held accountable for at least part of this deaths, but it is a civil war death toll, and not the number of deaths in detention/and deliberate killings. I think that Assad is a horrible guy. His father was obviously a brutal dictator and Assad has mismanaged the country so badly that it fell into the civil war. I have personally seen videos of the shootings at demonstrators. One of the most touching and at the same time not explicitly graphic being this one [3]. I think that he's got to be held accountable for what he did. But not at the expense of tens of thousands dead innocent people. >AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.) Here, I would abstain from commenting on the validity of claims that the chemical weapons were used by Assad regime, since I think that I've already made my point that the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. Even the White House chief of staff has stated that the "Administration lacks irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence". Let's consider that the WMD was used by the explicit order of Assad, just for the sake of the argument. 0. Why not call for peace talks, and/or immediate ceasefire? It is the US and Syrian opposition that has continuously abstained from them. 1. First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. There is no such plan, not to my knowledge. And not to the knowledge of the members of the UK House of Commons and US State Senators (at least, the ones whose testimony I watched). How are you going to imply that the death toll would be magically minimal? Do you really think that it is the matter to be discussed without relying on documents, calculations, etc.? You somehow seem to imply that it is commonsensical that the death toll would be low, but that is not enough, as the past shows. 1.A. Kosovo (in this thread I have made a sourced point about the civilian death toll in Kosovo operation and the fact that it was well above the supposed number of Milosevic victims). 1.B. Iraq. Invation of Iraq has led to a horrendous civil war with tens of thousands (by conservative numbers) civilians killed, and that is not to mention couple of thousands of civilians that were killed during the invasion itself. Sorry, US has destroyed this country, it's infrastructure, etc. etc. The fact that Saddam was a horrible guy is not a validation for destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis. This is a crime against humanity, the same one for which people were hanged after Nuremberg Trials. Not to mention the horrible illnesses that were inflicted on Iraqis by depleted uranium contamination. Actually, the list can go on, and on, and on. As a large number of experts claim, and as I have written in previous comments, the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control. Israel is preparing for potential armed conflict with Iran as a result of this war. Turkey is preparing it's troops for potential ground invasion of Syria. Etc. etc. etc., I have written about it in this very thread. The civil war in Syria is not a war of Assad against all of it's people (or he would've already lost long time ago). It is a war between various factions in Syria and outside of Syria. It is a war of Alawites against members of other sects. It is a war between Sunni and Shia. It is a war of Syrian people against invasion of foreign jihadi militants from all over the world. It is a war of Quatar for the ability to sell natural gas on the European market (they finance foreign militants to be able to install the regime that will allow to build pipeline over Syrian territory). It is a war of Saudi Arabia, United States [4] [5] for the regional domination. It is a war of Iran for it's security. It could be a war of Israel to potentially gain more territories beyond Golan Heights. It is a war of Russia for the domination of the European natural gas market. It is a war of Russia with it's very own jihadists that have travelled to Syria from Chechnya, the list goes on, and on, and on. Oh, and also this is an opportunity for the Kurds to create their own nation state. And a war of different factions of Iraqis against each other. Just to elaborate, according to a Qatari poll that was made in the end of 2011, 55% of Syrians were supportive of Assad at the time. [6]

by berntb 13y ago

foobarqux 13y ago

I never said the US gov is worse than Syria gov. I never advanced an ideology. In other comments which you refer to I simply stated that there really isn't any evidence that has been presented as to what chemicals were used if any and by whom. Compelling evidence seems like one sensible precondition for starting a war. Finally, my statement that the US doesn't care about Syrians is germane to your point: You can't expect their situation to improve if those who claim that they effect that change don't actually care.

berntb 13y ago
Enough. Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. Again: Are you in a Syrian or Iranian 50 cent army? Or are you one of those leftwing extremists that never support a democracy against a dictator? Like many others all over the internet now, you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without. Again: You argue there is a conspiracy with Israeli, US, French information lying. You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. (Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus. And that French and US intelligence would both lie is a conspiracy.) Is it worse to torture and rape children -- or to defend such people dishonestly...?
- pipy 13y ago
  When we are discussing the issue of Syria bombardment, it is a good idea to address these questions separately: 1. Justification (legal and moral). -a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons? -b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value? -c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN? 2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large). -a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments? -b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties? 1. Justification 1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved. 1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1] 1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2] During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN. Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this). If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3] As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution. 2. Consequences 2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4] 2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_c... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933 [4] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-strikes-against-syria-as-questions-swirl-about-endgame/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-st... P.S. There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation. [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321200
- foobarqux 13y ago
  I don't defend the Syrian government. Is it not possible to say that there is not yet any compelling evidence about who used weapons in Ghouta and what those weapons were without supporting the Syrian government? And likewise to state that the goals of the US are not humanitarian? And of course there is a conspiracy: These are allies acting for substantial mutual benefit just as Iran, Russia and China are conspiring. We saw similar concerted misinformation in Iraq and Libya, both of which are much worse off after their humanitarian-bombardment. > Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. DWB do not have members in the area. They received second hand reports of fairly non-specific symptoms that they said would be consistent with a chemical attack. Moreover, they were adamant that they could not determine who launched the attack. > The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus I know nothing about artillery positions but I as far as I know a method of delivery has not been established.
  - berntb 13y ago
    >>I don't defend the Syrian government. As I wrote in what you comment on: "Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. [...] you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without." I just note you missed a third(!) chance to condemn... A member in an Iranian/Syrian "50 cent army" would write just what you write. (Does that make you proud?) I would like to touch your arguments too, but... You are certain France, Israel and USA are in a conspiracy and lie (despite all the leaks). And that all the western media are in on the conspiracy and keep the truth away from the "sheeple". Not much to say, since that isn't falsifiable; it explains every argument anyone can write, you can just stay with the media which write extremist conspiracy theories... (As an additional note -- the method of delivery might be hard to establish with the large shelling from the Assad artillery after the gas attack. But that is probably just another lie? :-) )
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      I didn't take the opportunity to condemn because it wasn't relevant to my point which was independent of anyone's feelings on the Syrian government. But to make you happy: I condemn the atrocities committed by the Syrian government. And to make you less happy: Without making a comparison or equivalence, I condemn the atrocities committed by rebel forces and the US government. I am not certain of anything. Allied forces have strong incentives to mislead, as does the media in those countries, and we have recent historical evidence showing that they have done so in other cases (Iraq, Libya). It is simply not a defensible position to assert that governments don't mislead, even in concert. Your argument seems to boil down to "the government wouldn't lie to me" when we have seen that they would. And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence. To be clear the Syrian government may, at a later date, be proved to have used chemical weapons. But that still wouldn't make the fact that, right now, there is no compelling evidence to support such a claim. Unjustified belief is not knowledge.
- pipy 13y ago
  Answering here, so that my reply to your post [1] won't get squeezed. [PART 1] Just in case: I believe in your sincerity and want for the truth, and didn't mean to offend you in any way. >Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low. No, I've opened the actual article by Amnesty that is linked in Wikipedia near the figure, and on pages 10 and 11 it states this: Since the outbreak of pro-reform protests in Fe bruary 2011 and of mass protests calling for the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad and his government, in particular after the security forces first shot dead several demonstrators in Dera’a on 18 March 2011, Amnesty International has received the names of more than 10,000 people – mainly men and boys -who have been killed during the unrest, although the actual figure may be considerably higher. The evidence collected in the Aleppo and Idlib governorates, including the Jebel al-Zawiyah and Jebel al-Wastani areas, shows that hundreds, possibly more, have been deliberately killed at close range. While some of the victims were active in the opposition, many of them were killed unlawfully after having been taken captive; others appear to have been targeted simply because they were living in opposition-held areas and as such may have been considered supporters of armed opposition groups, including those linked to the FSA. Others were reportedly killed simply because soldiers wanted to take revenge on people from the area and/or could not find those they were looking for. [2] That is not to say that Assad is not to be held accountable for at least part of this deaths, but it is a civil war death toll, and not the number of deaths in detention/and deliberate killings. I think that Assad is a horrible guy. His father was obviously a brutal dictator and Assad has mismanaged the country so badly that it fell into the civil war. I have personally seen videos of the shootings at demonstrators. One of the most touching and at the same time not explicitly graphic being this one [3]. I think that he's got to be held accountable for what he did. But not at the expense of tens of thousands dead innocent people. >AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.) Here, I would abstain from commenting on the validity of claims that the chemical weapons were used by Assad regime, since I think that I've already made my point that the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. Even the White House chief of staff has stated that the "Administration lacks irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence". Let's consider that the WMD was used by the explicit order of Assad, just for the sake of the argument. 0. Why not call for peace talks, and/or immediate ceasefire? It is the US and Syrian opposition that has continuously abstained from them. 1. First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. There is no such plan, not to my knowledge. And not to the knowledge of the members of the UK House of Commons and US State Senators (at least, the ones whose testimony I watched). How are you going to imply that the death toll would be magically minimal? Do you really think that it is the matter to be discussed without relying on documents, calculations, etc.? You somehow seem to imply that it is commonsensical that the death toll would be low, but that is not enough, as the past shows. 1.A. Kosovo (in this thread I have made a sourced point about the civilian death toll in Kosovo operation and the fact that it was well above the supposed number of Milosevic victims). 1.B. Iraq. Invation of Iraq has led to a horrendous civil war with tens of thousands (by conservative numbers) civilians killed, and that is not to mention couple of thousands of civilians that were killed during the invasion itself. Sorry, US has destroyed this country, it's infrastructure, etc. etc. The fact that Saddam was a horrible guy is not a validation for destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis. This is a crime against humanity, the same one for which people were hanged after Nuremberg Trials. Not to mention the horrible illnesses that were inflicted on Iraqis by depleted uranium contamination. Actually, the list can go on, and on, and on. As a large number of experts claim, and as I have written in previous comments, the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control. Israel is preparing for potential armed conflict with Iran as a result of this war. Turkey is preparing it's troops for potential ground invasion of Syria. Etc. etc. etc., I have written about it in this very thread. The civil war in Syria is not a war of Assad against all of it's people (or he would've already lost long time ago). It is a war between various factions in Syria and outside of Syria. It is a war of Alawites against members of other sects. It is a war between Sunni and Shia. It is a war of Syrian people against invasion of foreign jihadi militants from all over the world. It is a war of Quatar for the ability to sell natural gas on the European market (they finance foreign militants to be able to install the regime that will allow to build pipeline over Syrian territory). It is a war of Saudi Arabia, United States [4] [5] for the regional domination. It is a war of Iran for it's security. It could be a war of Israel to potentially gain more territories beyond Golan Heights. It is a war of Russia for the domination of the European natural gas market. It is a war of Russia with it's very own jihadists that have travelled to Syria from Chechnya, the list goes on, and on, and on. Oh, and also this is an opportunity for the Kurds to create their own nation state. And a war of different factions of Iraqis against each other. Just to elaborate, according to a Qatari poll that was made in the end of 2011, 55% of Syrians were supportive of Assad at the time. [6]