Syria chemical weapons allegations

[Swing_n_Speed]

Create another NAM and watch the show like our mahaan Nehru chacha' date=' who's foreign policy expertise was well known. Its a shame evil Amreeka fought those earlier wars at all, forget the excesses. They should have watched Fascism control Europe and Communism created peaceful & prosperous nations like earlier Cambodia & modern day North Korea.[/quote'] And yet you conveniently fail to mention Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestine is simply paradise too rit?

[Clarke]

And yet you conveniently fail to mention Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. Palestine is simply paradise too rit?

They wouldn't be any havens of peace without American presence. Same goes with Syria. 100k dead and here we have people talking of how evil America shall intervene and cause death and destruction.

[randomGuy]

They wouldn't be any havens of peace without American presence. Same goes with Syria. 100k dead and here we have people talking of how evil America shall intervene and cause death and destruction.

US's lapdog Saudi Arabia arms Syrian rebels. So the US bears responsibility for those 100k deaths. Attacking Syria wouldn't solve anything, rather elongate the civil war. They should always have tried to engage with Syrian regime and tried to strengthen what was supposed to be the most secular option for Syria. The case of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan is different, and one can justify use of force in those cases IMO.

[ravishingravi]

They wouldn't be any havens of peace without American presence. Same goes with Syria. 100k dead and here we have people talking of how evil America shall intervene and cause death and destruction.

Well I don't blame US for this situation. But it is mildly amusing how Obama is flipping out over chemical attacks. As you said, 100 K people have died in this conflict. So, in that sense not sure how 1400 more becomes a game changer. And more importantly given the great track record, what is the strategy they bring to the table. What can they possibly do ? I am still trying to get my head around why Assad would want to use chemical weapons when the eyes of entire world was on him.

[Clarke]

US's lapdog Saudi Arabia arms Syrian rebels. So the US bears responsibility for those 100k deaths. Attacking Syria wouldn't solve anything, rather elongate the civil war. They should always have tried to engage with Syrian regime and tried to strengthen what was supposed to be the most secular option for Syria. The case of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan is different, and one can justify use of force in those cases IMO.

Yeah I heard that before, US is responsible with or without intervention. The idea as I said earlier is to form a NAM and watch dictators do as they please, be it Pol Pot or Assad. The world then would be a much better place.

[randomGuy]

Yeah I heard that before' date=' US is responsible with or without intervention.[/quote'] Well it is, it could have used the influence it has on the Saudis and prevented much of those 100k deaths. It knew the rebels had near zero chance of toppling the regime which has a well coordinated army backed and armed by Russia and Iran. Treat every dictator as a separate case. Assad regime is the best option for Syria till the armed rebels are neutralized.

[ravishingravi]

Well it is, it could have used the influence it has on the Saudis and prevented much of those 100k deaths. It knew the rebels had near zero chance of toppling the regime which has a well coordinated army backed and armed by Russia and Iran. Treat every dictator as a separate case. Assad regime is the best option for Syria till the armed rebels are neutralized.

Even if he is doing these chemical attacks ? I see where you are coming from. But at what cost.

[randomGuy]

Even if he is doing these chemical attacks ? I see where you are coming from. But at what cost.

Engage with him, do not alienate him by air strikes, by arming rebels or by media propaganda. Does American Ego and war mongering machinery leave any scope for this? I am guessing some lower commander used those chemical weapons w/o Assad's clearance.

[Clarke]

Well I don't blame US for this situation. But it is mildly amusing how Obama is flipping out over chemical attacks. As you said' date=' 100 K people have died in this conflict. So, in that sense not sure how 1400 more becomes a game changer. And more importantly given the great track record, what is the strategy they bring to the table. What can they possibly do ? I am still trying to get my head around why Assad would want to use chemical weapons when the eyes of entire world was on him.[/quote'] Its not 1400, its the WMDs. Chemical weapons are lower down the list i.e. you can have some of them but cannot use them. As you move up to the top and touch the nuclear level when talking about multiple dictators having access to the red button, 100k can seem like a minor conflict. That's where you're not allowed to have them. I'm talking of course from the International policeman's perspective. The strategy isn't to end the conflict in one go but prevent annihilation of the rebels and give them some sort of a chance on the table. No action against Assad is giving him a license to do what he wants, a few more of these and the rebellion is crushed and a new reign of terror begins in Syria. It also allows other dictators to start using these weapons on their own people. One can rightfully argue its not fair for some nations to have WMDs and not others, but you also need to ask yourself if its better for everyone to have nukes and other WMDs ? A streched analogy, but when we talk of the gun problem in US, do we prefer just the policemen carrying an assault rifle or every adult and child carrying one ? The last question of yours, why Assad would use these weapons ? Probably because he's a crazy dictator who isn't a responsible leader, hasn't tasted much defeat and is fed by BS from his bootlicking generals and maybe his international allies as well. Why did Saddam invade Kuwait for instance ? Castro declared in 1992 that he had recommended Krushchev to use tactical nukes already present in Cuba during the missile crisis in case of a conventional US attack. What exactly would Castro gain by having his country reduced to nuclear wasteland ?

[Clarke]

Well it is' date=' [b']it could have used the influence it has on the Saudis and prevented much of those 100k deaths. It knew the rebels had near zero chance of toppling the regime which has a well coordinated army backed and armed by Russia and Iran.

How's that happening ? Rebels waving white flags to be treated as per the Geneva convention ?

Treat every dictator as a separate case. Assad regime is the best option for Syria till the armed rebels are neutralized.

The best option uses chemical weapons on civilians. I don't know if that's true but even if it were, it's the middle east so lets cut some slack to the evil Americans.

[Clarke]

Engage with him' date=' do not alienate him by air strikes, by arming rebels or by media propaganda. Does American Ego and war mongering machinery leave any scope for this? I am guessing some lower commander used those chemical weapons w/o Assad's clearance.[/quote'] You're making some big **** assumptions by annointing Assad as some peaceful leader without an ego. If engagement was the answer, it would have already been pursued. Did you see US military engaging in Egypt which is a much bigger regional power ?

[randomGuy]

How's that happening ? Rebels waving white flags to be treated as per te Geneva convention ? The best option uses chemical weapons on civilians. I don't know if that's true but even if it were, it's the middle east so lets cut some slack to the evil Americans.

1. If rebels hadn't taken to arms, most of them would not be dead. 2. Most of the civilian casualties would also have been avoided. 3. Its not proven tht Assad ordered chemical weapons strike. 4. By not stopping the arming of rebels by Saudis, the US bears some responsibility for those 100k deaths and potentially lacs more if it further needles in Syria by striking it or by helping arm rebels further.

[Params7]

The best option uses chemical weapons on civilians. I don't know if that's true but even if it were, it's the middle east so lets cut some slack to the evil Americans.

Rebels have used them too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188 And really, until America releases the material evidence to the public or at least challenges Assad and Russia on their collected evidence, Assad is innocent until proven guilty. I looked up what Obama/Kerry are saying they have as evidence. "Satellite imagery" "Recorded conversations"...sounds all too familiar: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/05/iraq.usa Colin Powell's speech at the UN regarding WMD's that Saddam was hiding. Full of satellite imagery and recorded conversations as well, proving beyond doubt Saddam was hiding WMD's. Well only later, its now common knowledge US fabricated all of the evidence and the entire invasion was based on lies. Fool me once..shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me. In any case, the case with Syria is pretty cut and clear - Its Assad - a man who lead Syria into a secular state (an extremely progressive way for an Islamic state) who has some tendency to overreact during protests VS the Rebels, powered by Saudi Arabia/US/UK and completely made out of terrorist outfits including Al-Qaeda, Sharia Law worshiping savages who have brutalized Syria since the beginning of this "civil" war. There are videos of FSA on liveleak executing children by the firing squad, beading a Christian bishop, eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier. If Assad if forcibly removed now with these Rebels having more power, the ethnic cleansing and perpetual sectarian war that will be unleashed in Syria will make Assad's Syria seem like jannah in comparison.

[Clarke]

1. If rebels hadn't taken to arms, most of them would not be dead. 2. Most of the civilian casualties would also have been avoided. 3. Its not proven tht Assad ordered chemical weapons strike. 4. By not stopping the arming of rebels by Saudis, the US bears some responsibility for those 100k deaths and potentially lacs more if it further needles in Syria by striking it or by helping arm rebels further.

Bollocks dude, its like saying USSR & India bear some responsibility for Bangladesh genocide because we helped their rebels. Military dictatorships are bound to have armed rebellions to overthrow them, not often do they simply roll up and make way for democracy. You can dispute the intervention of outside powers but can't hold them responsible for the rebel territories being gassed or bombed.

[randomGuy]

Bollocks dude' date=' its like saying USSR & India bear some responsibility for Bangladesh genocide because we helped their rebels. Military dictatorships are bound to have armed rebellions to overthrow them, not often do they simply roll up and make way for democracy. You can dispute the intervention of outside powers but can't hold them responsible for the rebel territories being gassed or bombed.[/quote'] India's case was different, we were actually fully committed to breaking Pakistan into 2 so that it can not threaten to harm us from two sides - east and west. Plus Syria has sophisticated ,coordinated, motivated and resourceful army to defeat any kind of rebellion. I have listened to assad's interviews and tbh he seems more reasonable than even Obama, certainly not to be compared with the likes of gaddafi/saddam or to be replaced by the likes of Al-quaeda.

[Raghav_12]

Well I don't blame US for this situation. But it is mildly amusing how Obama is flipping out over chemical attacks. As you said' date=' 100 K people have died in this conflict. So, in that sense not sure how 1400 more becomes a game changer. And more importantly given the great track record, what is the strategy they bring to the table. What can they possibly do ? I am still trying to get my head around [b']why Assad would want to use chemical weapons when the eyes of entire world was on him.

I think that is something which puts seeds of doubt in many minds. Though I am in support of an intervention from outside to stop this bloodshed, even if it means US attacking Syria without UN approval, yet I am not fully convinced that it's Asaad's regime which used chemicl weapons. Couple of reasons for my doubts 1. As of now Assad's forces are in far more comfortable positions then they were few months ago. At start of this year, Assad's fall was looking imminent and rebel forces were increasingly taking control of Syrian territory. However since then fortune of Assad's forces have changed which were also helped by support from Hezbollahs. At this point of time, Assad's forces have seemed to have taken decisive advantage. So it would be absoultely foolish from Assad's forces if they use chemical gas at this juncture. 2. Assad is very much aware that whole world is watching. Use of chemical weapons would mean invitation of attack from western forces, something that he can ill-afford. adding to that there is some tentativeness America's part in sharing evidences which they claim to have to prove Assad's culpability in chemical attack.

[Mariyam]

Yeah I heard that before' date=' US is responsible with or without intervention. The idea as I said earlier is to form a NAM and watch dictators do as they please, be it Pol Pot or Assad. The world then would be a much better place.[/quote'] Right. The world is a much better place now that the US have saved liberated the South Vietnamese from the clutches of the evil North Vietnamese communist regime using Napalm, isn't it? I mean North Vietnam was so much of an existential threat to the US, with its paddy fields, peasants in 3 feet long hats and 12 different varieties of snakes as a culinary delight. I rather a leader like Nehru (the guy you love to berate so much) and be a part of the NAM and not have the blood of millions of innocents in the name of furthering ' freedom/ liberty' by my elected representatives on my behalf.

[Clarke]

Right. The world is a much better place now that the US have saved liberated the South Vietnamese from the clutches of the evil North Vietnamese communist regime using Napalm, isn't it? I mean North Vietnam was so much of an existential threat to the US, with its paddy fields, peasants in 3 feet long hats and 12 different varieties of snakes as a culinary delight.

You'll never find me defending the excesses of US foreign policy, the second gulf war or even Guantanamo bay. But I am very glad that US foreign policy played a part in defeating fascism and more importantly defeating communism. Without the latter, the world would be a lot more red towards the end of the last century and history thus suggests it would be much worse. I'd love a strong, decisive and fair UN but short of that, I'll take American military superiority as the lesser of the evils compared to Russia, China or some Arab/African dictator flexing their sphere of influence.

I rather a leader like Nehru (the guy you love to berate so much) and be a part of the NAM and not have the blood of millions of innocents in the name of furthering ' freedom/ liberty' by my elected representatives on my behalf.

Yes, you prefer watching many more millions die out of fascism, communism or just crazy military dictators. Except the intervention isn't about you or me, its about the many more that will fall victim to such WMDs which can be actively used since there's potentially no punishment for using them. I berate chacha Nehru ? You mean the PM who gave up our claimed territory of Kashmir, ensured we suffered our only military defeat to China and most importantly created the foundations for the license raj and hindu rate of growth to keep us bhikhari for decades ?Yeah, great leader :hatsoff:

[yoda]

You'll never find me defending the excesses of US foreign policy, the second gulf war or even Guantanamo bay. But I am very glad that US foreign policy played a part in defeating fascism and more importantly defeating communism. Without the latter, the world would be a lot more red towards the end of the last century and history thus suggests it would be much worse. I'd love a strong, decisive and fair UN but short of that, I'll take American military superiority as the lesser of the evils compared to Russia, China or some Arab/African dictator flexing their sphere of influence. Yes, you prefer watching many more millions die out of fascism, communism or just crazy military dictators. Except the intervention isn't about you or me, its about the many more that will fall victim to such WMDs which can be actively used since there's potentially no punishment for using them. I berate chacha Nehru ? You mean the PM who gave up our claimed territory of Kashmir, ensured we suffered our only military defeat to China and most importantly created the foundations for the license raj and hindu rate of growth to keep us bhikhari for decades ?Yeah, great leader :hatsoff:

Great post. :nice:

[Swing_n_Speed]

Yeah I heard that before' date=' US is responsible with or without intervention. The idea as I said earlier is to form a NAM and watch dictators do as they please, be it Pol Pot or Assad. The world then would be a much better place.[/quote'] Two issues here, the first being you simply refuse to acknowledge facts. What is happening in Syria is no freedom struggle. More like an armed insurgency. Second being no one is asking USA to support dictators, but pray tell me who are their closest allies in the middle east? Where was Barrack during Bahrain's revolution? And isn't the Saudi government just adorable? After-all Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries so pressing for violence in Syria are all beacons of democracy rit? And finally yes before USA's intervention, Libya was actually quite peaceful and so was Syria and so was Iraq!!!!!