3 ms·

[PART 2] 1.C. As you probably know, today Syria and Russia have agreed to the proposal by Kerry that the only way to prevent attacks is to put the WMD's under

by pipy 13y ago

[PART 2] 1.C. As you probably know, today Syria and Russia have agreed to the proposal by Kerry that the only way to prevent attacks is to put the WMD's under international control. And the US reaction, at least immediate, was to instantly shift the goals of Syria bombings from helping the people of Syria to "Making a point for international community", and state that it welcomes the political solution but is still going to bomb Syria nevertheless. 2. In fact, the Obama administration has constantly shifted the goals of the bombings, to the point when it is really hard to take their arguments seriously. They were stating that they are not going to force Assad out of power, now they are stating that they are going to force Assad out of power, etc. I hope that I have answered your question about why the bombings are a great potential threat to the people of Syria. I don't see the US trying to find a peaceful solution. 3. Obama is a mass murderer himself, he kills thousands of people by drones, not to mention the "double drone attack" tactic that targets first responders, which constitutes a war crime under international law. [7] And the list can be continued with mass tortures (for which large number of torturers have recently got official immunity [8]), extraordinary rendition, etc. Man, suppose we have a large family in which one of the members is abusing others. You are suggesting feeding an entire family to a crocodile (US bombs and forein jihadis brought in by Quatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) as a remedy. Or, potentially nuke them from orbit with a whole city as a worst-case scenario (ignite the whole region in conflict). Shit has hit the fan on the March of 2011. And there is no silver bullet, no silver DU munitions, not even a silver nuke to clean it up. You are suggesting to fight fire by pouring gasoline into it. A number of countries and experts have called for ceasefire and peace talks, to which the Syrian government has agreed. There is no rational reason behind US putting this option off the table beyond it's strategic interests in the Middle East. Not that I know of. This, plus the lack of evidence that support the statement that it is Assad who used WMDs, is a giant red flag (don't forget the Iraq lies too). Sadly, there is no good force to sort things out, probably, beyond the UN. I'm probably as against Assad as you are. The point in which I differ is that the US bombardments would cripple the poor country even further. Oh, I think I should've gone to sleep long time ago... ---------- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6355356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6355356 [2] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/041/2012/en/30416985-883b-4e67-b386-0df14a79f694/mde240412012en.pdf http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/041/2012/en/30... [3] http://vimeo.com/72095995 http://vimeo.com/72095995 [4] General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran Made in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM [5] To quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, renowned US strategist and Obama's mentor (sorry for pasting such large number of quotes, but it's definitely worth it). "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) "The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125) "In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133). "It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148) "America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194) "With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197) "That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198) Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard": http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf Obama: I've learned an immense amount from Dr. Brzezinski: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlETEx0T-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlETEx0T-I [6] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians... [7] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/living-under-drones/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/living-under-drones/ [8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q14fz0Bd-kM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q14fz0Bd-kM

berntb 13y ago
See comment to previous. In short: I still can't see that you answered my simple counter argument. The shorter I write, noting you pretend you don't see it, the more text you write.
- pipy 13y ago
  Well, I have tried... Here's my last reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 I have put quite an effort to explain my position and the view on the situation. I've got some background in applied math and (I suppose) that my arguments are well in line with the requirements of elementary logic. Maybe I was too emotional in making my case, I don't know. I really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies. In a similar way I feel helpless in arguing with you. I feel that I've been deluding myself in a sense that discussing the issue of Syrian bombardments with you was only a channel to funnel my complete helplessness to prevent US from bombing Syrian people. I feel that for now it is better for me to channel my free time and efforts to the subjects that are in the realm of reach, such is the situation in my own country and in my own life. Best wishes and good luck! Let's hope that our motives in this issue are much closer than we might feel.
  - berntb 13y ago
    I didn't read carefully -- after I asked FOUR times, you really did touch (not answer) my single argument, similar to the Obama administration's position. Just five days after I posted it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 I will answer to your comments on my point. >>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. You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points. Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus). So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations... I don't believe you are honest here. >>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. I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this: From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance. It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them. >>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria". Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.) Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above): ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.

by pipy 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

See comment to previous. In short: I still can't see that you answered my simple counter argument. The shorter I write, noting you pretend you don't see it, the more text you write.

pipy 13y ago
Well, I have tried... Here's my last reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 I have put quite an effort to explain my position and the view on the situation. I've got some background in applied math and (I suppose) that my arguments are well in line with the requirements of elementary logic. Maybe I was too emotional in making my case, I don't know. I really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies. In a similar way I feel helpless in arguing with you. I feel that I've been deluding myself in a sense that discussing the issue of Syrian bombardments with you was only a channel to funnel my complete helplessness to prevent US from bombing Syrian people. I feel that for now it is better for me to channel my free time and efforts to the subjects that are in the realm of reach, such is the situation in my own country and in my own life. Best wishes and good luck! Let's hope that our motives in this issue are much closer than we might feel.
- berntb 13y ago
  I didn't read carefully -- after I asked FOUR times, you really did touch (not answer) my single argument, similar to the Obama administration's position. Just five days after I posted it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 I will answer to your comments on my point. >>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. You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points. Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus). So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations... I don't believe you are honest here. >>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. I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this: From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance. It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them. >>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria". Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.) Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above): ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.