I just want to make everyone aware this is a 20 yr old plan by someone named Wolfowitz
and here's evidence why we want to go to war with Syria call it a conspiracy...Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all illegally attacked....now we want to attack the next target..so?
It should be noted though, that unlike Iraq, Syria IS using weapons of mass destruction against the own population (And tried to 'hide' that fact by carpet bombing the target area with artillery for a week)
Also this would not start a war in Syria, because there already IS war in Syria. Adding a major player to the war would more likely end it sooner. At least thats what happened in WW1 and WW2.
The main issue with Syria (as with Afghanistan or Iraq) is the "what comes after". Obviously peace would only ever be reinstated under the current Assad regime if Assad manages to obliterate all opposition. Since his opposition is wide parts of the Syrian population this is obviously not a desirable outcome. It'd be a slaughter.
The opposition however is not politically united. You have a small group of democratic forces, a much larger group of various Islamist groups routed in the country itself, and then you have quite a number of extremely radical jihadi extremist, backed by other foreign countries, fighting not only against Assad but also against each other. Their ideas for the Syrian state in some cases are close to the Afghan Terror Regime of the Taliban, even worse groups fight just for their own gain with the goal of pillaging and plundering. Its likely because of that, that the radical islamic Hisbollah, or the neighbouring Iran have rather been supporting Assad instead of the extreme radicals ( side-note Iran has not been an ally to the Taliban either, on the contrary, Iran never recognized the Taliban regime, and the Taliban at one point assaulted the Iranian embassy in Kabul and killed all their diplomats )
The easiest way to end the conflict with a peaceful outcome would be if Iran invades the country and overthrows both the Assad regime, and drives out the ultra radicals in favor of its own islamic 'lets not call it democracy' - the population would likely accept that, and they'd be better of than with both Assad and the ultra extremists. Problem is, theres another player that would not allow such an increase of Iranian influence in the region, and that is Israel, which is in a quasi-state of war with Iran - buffered only by the fact there is currently no common border (although theres occasional Israeli air raids on Iranian territory, mostly directed at nuclear facilities - another powder keg in the ongoing fire...) - the buffer in between however is Syria, and Syria is in a state of civil war.
Israel is therefore highly interested in a stable Syria, but it has no option to bring peace to Syria, it has not enough military strength, and the population would see Israeli forces as an oppressing invader. (Also the Israeli government is way too focused on internal power struggles to launch any decisive military campaign)
US troops would not necessarily fare any better. In the beginning it wouldn't even have been possible to invade Syria at all. The Syrian airforce and air-defense are equipped with state of the art systems, provided by Russia. The US would win, but only after a long, lossful and costly campaign. Meanwhile however the Assad military has lost a lot of its strength due to rebel attacks. So much that they need to resort to extreme methods (aka chemical warfare) to hold their positions. Entire units have defected and changed sides. If the US would attack now, a decisive victory would be possible within reasonable time. Even with a limited campaign that would provide - lets say - close air support for Syrian opposition forces.
Of course the problem remains that as soon as Assad is no more - some of those opposition forces would turn on each other in a fight for who's gonna rule the country or parts of it. The trick is therefore to support the correct ones.
The alternative is to do nothing and let the fire burn. See who wins, loyal and rogue Assad troops, wiping out entire rebel towns with chemical weapons, or the ultra Islamists who are backed from abroad by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...
It should be noted though, that unlike Iraq, Syria IS using weapons of mass destruction against the
well even from your analysis, Assad winning would seem to cause the least deaths so why are we giving the rebels arms (illegally by the way) to overthrow a power simply because he's on a 20 yr old hit list
well even from your analysis, Assad winning would seem to cause the least deaths so why are we givin
Because it balances their power against the arms and manpower provided by arab countries and given to ultra radical groups. They might be islamists (duh, its an islamic country) but they are at least the reasonable ones.
It would of course be possible to support Assad instead and help him to commit attrocities against his countries population. Apparently Russia and China have decided to go for that course of action (and so has Lebanon, Iran, ...) but supporting Dictators in suppressing their population and executing the opposition has given the US a bad reputation in the past (Chile, ... ). Also Assads government is still in a state of war with an allied country (Israel, theres an armistice but no peace contract) so supporting him directly is politically out of question.
I am not sure it would really be the least amount of deaths btw. Assad and his ruling party are members of a minority group in the Syria, the majority are from a different ethnic group. Therefore the opposition is actually the majority of people, its just that the military power is (mostly) controlled by Assad's men, that gave him the strength to stay in power such long.
If the US doesn't do anything despite the apparent use of chemical weapons there will be an accusation: "why did you use such behaviour of a dictator as a pretence to go to war in Iraq even though it was a lie - throwing the country into chaos, but when such things really happen, you stand by and let a dictator slaughter his people by the thousands" or in other words, failure to act will cost the US of the little creditability the US still has. A country that at some point had the ambition to act as a "world police" - would be reduced to the role of a selfish power hungry nuclear nation, on equal grounds with China, Russia and France, but with no higher authority or creditability at all.
then again, maybe this is the role for the US in the 21st century, and not doing anything in this conflict at least doesn't add more fuel to the Syrian fire. So maybe you are right, at least from a US perspective, there is little harm, aside from a ruined reputation and some pissed of allies, to simply ignore the issue and deal with more important stuff instead (like the US economy)
At least this time it wouldn't be US bombs that kill the civilians. But it would make it very hard for the US to gain any assistance on international matters from anyone in the future.
Because it balances their power against the arms and manpower provided by arab countries and given t
1. we gave saddam chemical weapons to use against iran and told him where their troops were..despite this being totally illegal. 2. The UN says the rebels did the chemical weapons attacks (aka our CIA backed al quaeda (good to know though we're the ones paying them all along...yeah SURPRISE))...in fact Ive been told there are videos of them bragging about it
so again moral hi ground...not ours...why are we trying to overthrow THIS regime. There's millions starving in north korea btw
well thats just utter hypocrisy. You do know : 1. we gave saddam chemical weapons to use against i
hehe, attacking North Korea would be fun. They have a level of militarization that is almost unmatched. It would be like a mixture of fighting the Third Reich, Japanese Kamikaze's and Viet-Kong at the same time, except neither of them had nuclear weapons or threatened to fire them at the US or (more likely) at random allies of the US that are in missile range but lack the missile defense systems. North Korea would basically take South Korea and Japan "hostage" in case of a US attack and would likely not hesitate to blow some major cities of the map, despite the likely retaliation strike. Also North Korea is still allied with China, which is a country that - in a military encounter - would likely win against the US in a very very ugly way. (The Chinese army would easily outnumbers the American armed forces by around 20 to 1 - thats roughly the odds Germany was facing in spring 1945)
So no, an attack on North Korea is highly unlikely. They are just way too crazy.
Do you have a link to the result of the UN inspection linking the attack with rebels? Because I couldn't find any such document, the news just said the final result of the UN inspection is expected not before the end of the week. What I can find is that the Russian government is claiming this, while the US government is claiming the opposite.
Both would be possible, and in both context it would make sense for the Syrian government to try to cover up the attack (whether framed or committed makes little difference when used as a pretense for war)
The type and amount of chemical weapons used makes it likely that it was from Syrian government stashes, but that doesn't mean much in a country at civil war, where these weapons - or even the military units controlling them - might have changed sides even multiple times.
hehe, attacking North Korea would be fun. They have a level of militarization that is almost unmatch
srsly? we are funding al qaeda,....we gave arms to them in libya, this got botched there which is why they killed our ambassador, and we stood down our forces 30 min away, 1 hour by jets, and 3 hrs from italy bases, we got 3 of them...during a 6 hr attack, this also is news now.
yeah they dont report it HERE, because our news is totally corrupted, its all over foreign news...so like really first link looking it up?
good article, but check the update paragraph at the end:
[quote] UPDATE: This article was updated to clarify one or two points that some of our readers found misleading: The chemical attack earlier this year was widely blamed on the Syrian regime. It is this attack that the UN now concludes was carried out by Syrian rebels. ... that the most recent August 21st attack was carried out by government forces ... has yet to be fully determined [/quote]
Seems there is yet no conclusive result regarding who did the latest attack yet, maybe there never will be. Apparently bot the US and Russia have made up their mind though who is to blame, so maybe it doesn't even matter anymore.
Adding US troops will hardly make the area more peaceful, but will it be worse than doing nothing? We might never know.
good article, but check the update paragraph at the end: [quote] UPDATE: This article was updated t
update on UN report...seem contrived? so yeah...who did it, rebels on the day the UN came to inspect or the regime? logically, which do YOU think it was? and again this was OUTSIDE THE CAPITAL...yeah imma gonna launch chemical attacks outside the place I live
so...really...who do you think did this just based on logic?
update on UN report...seem contrived? so yeah...who did it, rebels on the day the UN came to inspec
Some bastard who either didn't give a shit about the lives of thousands of civilians - or was simply "following orders" - who had the trigger switch over life and death.
The population in the outskirts of the capital consists mostly of population not loyal to the government. There has been and is fighting going on in the capital and the government is not in control over all of it. It's possible some hardliner in the government forces decided to put 'an example' - maybe even without direct orders by the leadership, but because he lost his wifes and children in a bomb strike carried out by rebels and decided to retaliate this way...
It's thinkable that its part of a bigger plan to get the US involved in the fight. But the US likely would not fight on the side of the ultra radical Islamists close to Al Quaida, but support more moderate opposition forces. The ultras have little to gain in a US intervention, or do they? Would the moderates be ruthless enough to kill their own people in order to get the US involved? Was the strike initiated by an outside party? Someone bribed a high ranked military - or a terrorist group - to order the strike? It would not be the first time that even the US has caused the "incident" that served as a reason for war. In Vietnam, it was a faked north Vietnamese attack on a US patrol vessel that was the final straw. Adolf Hitler pulled the same trick when invading Poland in 1939 "ab Heute wird zurückgeschossen...".
There's many scenarios thinkable. One could even construct a conspiracy theory where Assads side wants the US to get involved - maybe speculating for a limited aerial campaign - in the hope it would result in more direct Russian or Chinese involvement in favour of the Syrian government. Far fetched, but not impossible...
Some bastard who either didn't give a shit about the lives of thousands of civilians - or was simply
dood wake up...i asked you a point blank question...the UN has said its likely the rebels staged the chemical attack
so logically...
who did it...on the DAY of a UN inspection to look at chemical weapons issues, do you this the government or rebels staged an attack>? Srsly, just pure logic? either its the rebels or the gov there is insane. take your pick.
and there are videos supposedly of rebels going hell yeah we didz it...havent looked those up yet, but again google
dood wake up...i asked you a point blank question...the UN has said its likely the rebels staged the
Assume just for a second theres rebels going "hell yeah, we did it, we just killed several thousands of our own, because we're so great..."
Whats wrong with this picture?
I'm sure they'd be quick to admit launching chemical weapons on a syrian military base, but what gain do you have from claiming that you killed thousands of civilians... or rather who gains from such a claim?
regardless who actually did the strike, I think we can safely assume that those videos are fake. Maybe you have heard of the "Syrian Electronic Army" - a group of hackers who are pro Assad and like to deface webpages and do other propaganda stunts. Videos as you describe sound exactly like their handwork - while a rebel group, no matter how ruthless it is - would not be so stupid as to boast with a chemical attack on their own followers. Even if they did it to get US help, such a video getting public would ruin the effort and get them killed by their own people.
Assume just for a second theres rebels going "hell yeah, we did it, we just killed several thousands
srsly, they did on the DAY the UN inspectors were coming specifically to see if Assad was using chemical weapons
so again..you have 2 choices...rebels staged something on that day to blame assad, or assad is totally nuts
thats it..which do you choose, the UN says the rebels did it,,, we who are funding the rebels ILLEGALLY for some unknown reason because we want to overthrow non US govs in middle east...say assad did it? so who do you believe
this is yes or no, assad crazy or rebels provoking something on a really convenient day
the rest of the WORLD thinks its the rebels, so do you agree with rational thought and 95% of the worlds population or with the US gov?
srsly, they did on the DAY the UN inspectors were coming specifically to see if Assad was using chem
the answer to that is easy: if the US stays out of Syria, then the version that the rebels did it will be declared the truth if the US goes into Syria and succeeds into overthrowing Assad, then the version where Assad did it will be declared the truth if the US goes into Syria and fucks up like they did in every single engagement since WW2, then the terrorists win, and will claim that the US staged the attack somehow
truth always depends on who wins the war ;)
the answer to that is easy: if the US stays out of Syria, then the version that the rebels did it wi
I would agree, but we are told to poo poo these ideas, even though duh....every revolution is a conspiracy. Anyone who disagrees denies that Paul Revere and John Adams met in a bar with others to conspire to throw some tea overboard. Or Lenin and Trotsky just happened to be there.
I would agree, but we are told to poo poo these ideas, even though duh....every revolution is a cons
I'm generally skeptical of Alex Jones. He goes in the right direction but then he kind of takes it a step weird. But aside from that, getting into a war in Syria is bullshit, and the reasons people claim it's justified are some of the same excuses they used for other wars in middle eastern countries where the US provided support to rebels. What happened there? Well, half of them still have deplorable human rights violations, and many of them the US has had to invade again within a few decades.
Turns out when you assist rebels in a foreign country to get natural resource and petrodollar perks, or to keep the commies at bay, that regime you install might decide it doesn't want to play ball anymore, and then you gotta get into another bloody war to take out that regime.
To the US Elites it's not about the human rights violations, it's not about the human suffering, it's not about the weapons of mass destruction. If that were the case, they US wouldn't be selectively invading countries which are threatening to, or which have, abandoned the petrodollar, while subsidizing other abusive governments with billions of dollars. The issue isn't that Syria is governed by bullies, it's that the US doesn't have those bullies in it's pocket. That's what starts wars.
For people who are legitimately horrified by the things happening in Syria I would like to say, "Okay. I understand. Do something about it. But don't send other people to fight on your moral crusade. Take full responsibility for your own shitstorm, and endanger no one else. Use your own damn money. Put your own damn feet on the ground. And when something goes horribly wrong, and people suffer as a consequence, take responsibility for your actions, even if the consequences weren't your intention. Because it's altogether possible that you may just become another villain in a war with no heroes."
I'm generally skeptical of Alex Jones. He goes in the right direction but then he kind of takes it
well this has nothing to do with alex jones. this is entirely about paul wolfowich and his 20 yr old plan to overthrow the top 7 pro russian regimes...iraq was first, then libya, then syria...so....is obama just rolling over for the last two?
next are somailia, sudan, um forgot that one, and then iran
so yeah...posted the links of people exposing this plan years before now
well this has nothing to do with alex jones. this is entirely about paul wolfowich and his 20 yr ol
I read the description of the second video before I watched it. Read something about Alex Jones, and I assumed it would be someone getting interviewed on his show or something. My mistake.
I tried to edit that part out of my first comment after I realized, but it was too late.
I read the description of the second video before I watched it. Read something about Alex Jones, an
"THIS video was originally from a 2007 talk GENERAL WESLEY CLARK gave that i down loaded from the Alex Jones channel ."
In the description for the video. I was in a hurry, and just kind of skimmed it before writing. I didn't start watching it until after I wrote the comment. I just figured with the wealth of information on why these wars are a bad idea, it was probably something worthwhile, even if it was related to an Alex Jones interview. Not to mention I didn't really need any further convincing.
"THIS video was originally from a 2007 talk GENERAL WESLEY CLARK gave that i down loaded from the Al
the reality as I said, this all seems to be a plan by paul wolfowich from 20 yrs yrs ago to overthrow pro russian countries before they regain power...seems we still on that hit list
the reality as I said, this all seems to be a plan by paul wolfowich from 20 yrs yrs ago to overthro
