Latest attack in Syria

(428 Posts)
Jammybean Wed 21-Aug-13 22:11:31

Just watching BBC news, they were frantically trying to save a toddler who was convulsing . I feel physically sick.

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 11:34:49

Agree with niceguy2 (again)

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 11:34:00

Very very good points eldritch of course I should have mentioned those proxy wars.

mini I am sorry I do not buy conspiracy theories. There are no angels in this, but I cannot possibly take seriously statements about mainstream Western media re-writing the facts. Sorry. (And are they supposed to sway us "for" or "against" btw?)

niceguy2 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:33:46

But then Max Hastings made the most important point, which was that the only thing to consider was how best to help the Syrian people. Bombing them would not help them.

Exactly! I'm not against intervention. But as I've said before I'd like to see a sensible plan with defined objectives.

I'm amazed so many people are suggesting we bomb the crap out of another country without asking what the aim is.

MiniTheMinx Thu 05-Sep-13 11:28:00

Kungfutea The geopolitics of oil and the appropriation of natural resources has everything to do with it. We don't fight wars because of ideology. The cold war wasn't about two competing ideas! how ever much you have falsely been led to believe this.

MiniTheMinx Thu 05-Sep-13 11:23:41

bemybebe It isn't rubbish to say that the U.S is already involved. What is rubbish is when mainstream Western media try to re-write the facts, or rather sway an argument not just by what they say but by what they don't say.

EldritchCleavage Thu 05-Sep-13 11:04:12

I lived through the Cold War. In many ways, it was much better when there were two superpowers who couldn't invade anybody for fear of mutually assured destruction

Only a Northern European could say that. Koreans, Vietnamese, Angolans and many many others will ruefully remember the hideous proxy wars fought in their countries with superpower backing. Others, like Greeks, Italians, Nicaraguans, Chileans and more will remember the complete distortion and undermining of their domestic politics by those same superpowers.

Wannabestepfordwife Thu 05-Sep-13 10:56:43

Thanks for the link minitheminx it was horrific reading!

I really am getting a fantastic education from this link

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 10:28:24

sorry don't get your point mini about military spending... I was illustrating the degree of mutual fear.

Lol about "repeat myself". if it is rubbish you can repeat as much as you wish it will still stay the same.

MiniTheMinx Thu 05-Sep-13 10:21:41

bemybebeSo the soviet Union may have spent 70% of GDP on its military but the US was spending more on its military than the soviet union and ALL other nations combined. Regan trebled the national debt despite saying that he wanted to reign in spending. The only spending cut under Regan was welfare and anything spent on socially useful things.

The U.S is already involved. If you can't fathom how, why not go back up thread and read some of the links, I can't be bothered to repeat myself.

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 09:37:53

ready to die= strike first knowing they were going to die

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 09:35:12

The only thing that was "better" is that neither side was prepared and ready to die (and go to heaven blah blah). It was only prepared to retaliate. But that would not have mattered if someone lost their nerve.

Facing religious fanatics definitely brought new challenges.

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 09:30:30

Cote. The statement was that "humanitarian disasters only occur in those middle eastern countries yet to be conquered by the US military"

I do not see "conquering here" and as far as I am aware US is not yet "involved" practically. Yet we have massive humanitarian disaster, would not you say?

If you think it was much better, you have no idea about the Cold War. The status quo, so called "stability" only emerged towards the death of Soviet Union. Stalin always had high ambitions, Khrushchev played with nukes and scared the shit out of the world (including people at home) that lasted for decades. Soviet Union spent 70% of GDP on military (that is what has finished it largely together with planned economy).

OhYouBadBadDragon Thu 05-Sep-13 09:13:17

You are right Cote - it was much better (apart from the cuban missile crisis, which was before my time). Rubbish of course for those who did live under communism, but much more stable.

CoteDAzur Thu 05-Sep-13 08:57:52

I lived through the Cold War. In many ways, it was much better when there were two superpowers who couldn't invade anybody for fear of mutually assured destruction.

CoteDAzur Thu 05-Sep-13 08:54:02

"Not involved"? As in, US has no interests in this region and so couldn't possibly have its own agenda in a future military intervention? grin

Lots of massive humanitarian disasters happened in Africa. Was there any military intervention for them?

HTH you get a grip on the situation smile

bemybebe Thu 05-Sep-13 08:41:23

US is not involved in Syria. Massive humanitarian disaster there.

Hth.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 05-Sep-13 07:48:22

"Isn't it amazing that humanitarian disasters only occur in those middle eastern countries yet to be conquered by the US military and its corporate oligarchs?". Abby Martin.

Kungfutea Thu 05-Sep-13 02:26:43

The Golan Heights has nothing to do with the civil war in Syria nor does it have anything to do with US involvement or not in Syria. What is the relevance? I don't see it. Seems like just a way to try to blame Israel, as per usual.

If there is oil in the Golan Heights, it'd be very limited. There has been a licence granted to explore (back in Feb) FFS.

Of course Israel is going to develop the Golan now, it's going to be there for the foreseeable future who the hell is it going to give it back to?

And one thing is for sure, the Syrian Druze living on the Golan Heights are VERY glad that they are on the right side of the border and that peace talks to give back the Golan failed a decade ago.

MiniTheMinx Thu 05-Sep-13 02:15:06

Applauds ElenorRigby I didn't know about Golan Heights and Genie but it makes perfect sense.

Why is the BBC so keen on war? They are ignoring and not reporting on evidence that the rebels have used sarin and that the UN inspectors know this already. Although Patten does have shares in an oil company and I guess oil prices will rise, so we know what his agenda is. Its still hard to fathom though that anyone would put self interest above the lives of others.

This is interesting: THE SHAMEFUL (AND RECENT) HISTORY OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS ABUSES BY THE US GOVERNMENT scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/09/04/the-shameful-and-recent-history-of-chemical-weapons-abuses-by-the-us-government/

"The US has been directly and indirectly responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Iraq over generations....In the most recent attack on Iraq, _the US used White Phosphorous, Napalm and Depleted Uranium_ in contravention of all conventions. According to a recent study by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Fallujah now has a higher rate of cancer, leukaemia and infant mortality than Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Young women in Fallujah are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukaemias.’ Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults"

Obama seems to be stepping away and saying that he didn't specify any "Red Line" the red line relates to international laws not America's policy.

bemybebe Wed 04-Sep-13 19:46:09

they cannot and they are entrenched in their views. although russia is now saying 'maybe' i would be amazed how they sell it internally after fierce anti-american/pro-syrian rhetoric at home

WetAugust Wed 04-Sep-13 16:35:30

Sorry - 'if' not a good choice of words. Just meant that it would be difficult to see how security council could agree between themselves and get Assad to tow the line.

I agree - it needn't have got this bad at all.

bemybebe Wed 04-Sep-13 16:25:53

sorry, which "if" do you refer here wet?

bemybebe Wed 04-Sep-13 16:25:04

and i v much blame russia for the mess. not now but 2 years ago when assad started very bloodily crushing the spread of arab spring. then there was a chance to negotiate. now with the civil war in full swing there will be no chance for constructive negotiations i am afraid. civil wars go on until one side is defeated by the other - too much bitterness and burned bridges. here the sides are fairly equal in might - military capability of assad is more than matched by high spririts and the resolve of the other (fragmented) rebel movement.

WetAugust Wed 04-Sep-13 16:23:41

That's a big 'if' Bemy.

Hopefully everyone will peer over the brink and decide it's just not worth it.

What we don't need is:

Attributed to Pres. George W. Bush: 'When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt'

bemybebe Wed 04-Sep-13 16:18:53

"I disagree that the UN Security Council knows what to do. "

I did not say that. I said "security council know exactly what they do." that very much involves Russia taking Assad side and China voting with Russia on the issue.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now