Good Jews are the ones who are speaking out against Israel atrocity. I didn’t say anything about the holocaust.
this link speaks volume:
Plain English: A hasty attack on Syria (and eventually Iran), just like Iraq and Arghanistan whom all in actual fact has nothing to do with USA and the west, serves only to Israel and war cabinets. The latter obviously doesn’t pay for American citizens. Look at your debt (17 T): http://www.usdebtclock.org/
On Sept 11, this former defense minister stated in this interview on the morning of 911. The BBC host announced 4 planes and not knowing if there are anymore.
2:28 for six to ten years
3:00 he stated Iran, Iraq (done), and Libya(done)
7:50 pre-emptive
the begining:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4077.htm
Sharon tells Perez: “We have our agents there” - according to Mark. I’m pretty certain he’s telling the truth.
Agents includes:
There are further links if you care to look that will show whom in office are duel Israel and US citizen who swear their alligeance to the former. That’s who Sharon was referring to “agents”
So then why did you show a video of Ahmadinejad meeting with some Rabbis in New York who’d previously shown up at his “conference” in Tehran denying the Holocaust?
Very much agree with your views on the current situation, John. Must admit I am a bit miffed as we – mostly – play in different fields. Then again, so what? Consensus works just fine…no need to repeat the past, but rather learn from it. And it’s obvious you have.
Would that others did as well.
Take care.
Depends on how the Syrian program is organized. The current stockpile should be stored , normally in specially designed bunkers. Chemical weapons are either an area denial weapon, thats used to channel protected opposing forces or they are a terror class weapon meant to be used on an unprotected population, say for instance, the red army rolling west in the beginning stages of world war three.
Anyhoo, you have to move these warheads from the bunkers to the shooters, depending on if its a bomb, rocket, artillery tube or crop duster. The movement is when they are most venerable, and i dont doubt that the known facilities are under observation. Special troops are normally handling these warheads and a high degree of communication with the national weather service is expected, if the weapons are going to be used in mass quantities, a change in wind direction is not a good thing.
So Assad reads the tea leaves and figures that from the time allied forces are given the go order, he has roughly about three weeks, so the dude needs an edge. He can either pre stockpile the weapons directly in built up civillian areas, and or pick his most trusted troops and dial in Israel with the rocketborne warheads and dare us to cross his red line.
Declan
However, when an intervention was considered, the position most people were taking (particularly on forums like this) was that we’d only make things worse.
Considering the situation as it was, and the direction it was going (i.e. to where Syria is now), that has not been the case.
Stop spamming the thread with YouTube links, and take this cabal discussion to another thread.
We’d only make things worse FOR THE US. I don’t think things are better FOR THE US now.
agree. violence begets more violence
All you need is love
do-do-do-do-do
stop the cycle of violence.
“love thy enemy”
as your enemy (Syria, Libya, Iraq, Arghanistan, Egypt and Iran) was never your enemy. You, and we the west, have been misguided.
Fight the ignorance.
All you is need love
do-do-do-do-do
Title of this thread: The ÙS should bomb Syria ------ NO!!! You should NOT
Sorry, I’m trying to connect the dots.
Majority of the west have been misguided. You (and us the west) have been used by one nation in the middle east for its atrocity. This war based on chemical in Syria has the hallmark of a false flag just like the many in the past.
War begets more wars. we need to stop the violence.
“Fighting ignorance”.
Wait! Say what now? The US objective in Afghanistan was to stay for a decade, install a gang of murdering, raping warlords in power and then to run away leaving one of the most corrupt governments in the world to protect itself with whatever army and police force it can afford with what of the interntional funds provided for that purpose remains unstolen?
Great plan.
He was largely correct. We achieved the war aims in Afghanistan fairly rapidly, within the first year. We then decided (Bush decided) to add on the goal of nation building after those war aims were achieved, which was not well considered at all. There has been fairly unpublicized and real progress in the goal of nation building, but it will never encompass all of Afghanistan or lead to a stable Afghan state in which the entire country is willing to live under the same government. Nationbuilding is ugly though, and never should have been our war aim once we had routed the Taliban and pushed major al-Qaeda operations into Pakistan.
Well, I admire your optimism. I bet in 5 years the Taliban will be back in power and the current bunch of crooks will be living it large on the last looted remains of the Treasury.
Our goal was to kick out al Qaeda. If the Taliban comes back, that doesn’t mean al Qaeda will be back. They’ve moved on to bigger and better pastures.
I couldn’t edit my response to your response: “cabal of Jews”.
Cabal of Zionists whom they have taken control of US government, main stream media, and possibly many important communication aspects in US.
There are many good Jews which I’m trying to point out. Not many people saw the former president extending his friendship to the Jewish community in New York. Have you?
holocaust - that’s another thread which I see no purpose in dwelling into except -If Israel is the purpose to provide a safe haven for the Jews, why is Israel doing to the Palestinians (atrocity, genocide) what others in the past have done to them the holocaust? Especially, Palestinians were not the culprit of the holocaust. Anyway, that’s another thread.
I didn’t really show any optimism at all, like I said we achieved our initial war aims. I then pointed out that nation-building has lead to some positives for Afghanistan but it would never result in a stable state covering the whole country. That doesn’t sound optimistic to me at all, because it basically predicts endless (at least as far as the eye can see) levels of internal warfare.
I’ve explained in another thread though, that it’s basically a fiction that the Taliban will ever again rule the majority of Afghanistan. I predict major cities like Kabul, Kandahar or Mazar-i-Sharif will never be in Taliban control for the rest of my lifetime.
I won’t go fully into it again since it isn’t the focus of this thread, but the Afghan government is going to have a very powerful military. Their military HQ is literally second only to the Pentagon in size. They have churned out a large number of highly trained officers from their academy, they have a quarter-million soldiers, 115,000 police officers and 40,000 intelligence officers. The overwhelming majority of these individuals are loyal to the ruling regime in Kabul. The infiltration incidents where Taliban have joined up and lay in wait until they do a spree shooting or whatever get much press–but represent a very small portion of the total forces.
The Taliban on the flipside have maybe 40,000 total fighters, no access to the heavy armored and air power of the new Taliban military, no vast financial backing from the United States (projected to be in the billions per year indefinitely), no explicit security guarantee (we’ve guaranteed their security at least through 2024–opening the possibility to U.S. involvement if the Kabul based regime was in serious danger of collapsing) and really no realistic means to destroy this powerful force keeping the Kabul regime in power. The Taliban have no means to take and hold territory.
In the provinces with the most Taliban activity, they have no formal governing institutions, no openly arrayed administrative offices or etc. Instead they basically operate like the mafia, running “territory” covertly. A guerrilla force like that can certainly make a much more powerful occupying army turn tail and run, once that army has “had enough.” But they are no longer fighting such an army, they’re fighting an army made up of people who actually live in Afghanistan, they don’t have anywhere to run. So they have to actually at some point be able to defeat and destroy that army, or raise enough popular support to somehow get that army on their side. I see no mechanism through which that could happen.
Politically, the Taliban have never once held majority support in most of the country. Of the many groups that fought during the 1990s civil war, they had the most successes, many areas in the north they had tenous control simply because they had so thoroughly routed their enemies that their hold could not be contested. When we intervened in 2001 many of these cities were lost almost over night, Mazar-i-Sharif is a good example–projected to be a holdout for over a year it was evacuated by the Taliban within a month of hostilities starting. Over the next few months city after city fell as the total collapse of the Taliban regime started. This was because they were a “mile wide and an inch deep” holding 90% of Afghanistan primarily because no one else remained after the civil war who could really contest them, but their hold was weak and not based on popular support.
As to the corrupt government, corrupt governments with mountains of arms and treasure don’t just collapse. What you could see is an Egypt situation, where the regime turns into “rule by generals” or something, and eventually becomes deeply unpopular and leads to a true popular uprising. But if that happens, there aren’t any real indicators it would be the Taliban that would spearhead that popular uprising, the Taliban is not popular and is outright hated in large parts of the country.
I agree with your stance. However, I feel this aggression by US and the west based on the alleged Assad use chemical weapons is just an excuse.
Why stop there? Drones and all other weapons produce the same casualties and worst like maiming of bodies. Aren’t these humanitarian atrocity?
because we the west supplied Saddam the chemicals.
US and we the west used the argument for punishing those who support terrorists and dictators. Yet, in reality it is the west (Russia, China included) are backers of these so called terrorists and dictators.
Does anyone see the hypocrisies??
I watched on TV last night this great episode from PBS Nova: Making Stuff Smarter.
One demonstration showed this protective form scientist developed from an idea based on properties of biological skin. They showed self healing on an army tanker truck. Another demonstrates the use of computer chip to control the viscosity of magnetorheologica (MR)l fluids by magnetic field. Here they show a military humvey using regular shock absorber and another with this MR fluids. First was really bumpy, the second with MR how the ride was much smoother that the host could actually drink from his bottle without spilling.
I enjoyed the technological advances but why promoting the military uses. The protective skin demo could be used on International Space Station where the danger of debris puncturing a hole in the station with catastrophic consequence. This material would life saving. There are so great sport recreational vehicles, why humvey?
It reminded me of this:
which in turn how we responds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and so on. For who??
America needs to go back to our roots. Can we not focus the great technologies on the positives (creation) for example space elevators, instead of the negatives (destruction) any military applications.
Huh? Are you agreeing with me?
It doesn’t make sense for the anti-war side to say the Libya intervention was a net loss to the US but overall positive for Libya / the region…that would cede the moral high ground and be engaging in the kind of selfish thinking they accuse the other side of doing.
OTOH, if you’re agreeing with me through rhetorical means…ok.
In a conflict, hypocrisy never applies to a stronger side.
In fact, when the only thing you have left is to point out to someone they act in a hypocritical manner, it’s only purpose is confirmation of other’s own strength.
I have yet to see someone withdrawing from a certain behaviour cause it is perceived to be hypocritical.
Moral of the story - don’t mention hypocrisy anymore.