Syria slams US-led coalition strike against troops as 'act of aggression'[W:118]

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Putin used Assad as a excuse to make a base in Syria. When all is said and done the area around that base will not be a part of Syria. There really isnt much left to Assads Syria anyways.

Oh and I fully expected you to throw in some Putin propaganda. I am unfazed.

You don't understand the national security interest of a warm water port for a country who's mainland ports can be blocked by winter ice. If you don't understand that Russia's presence in Syria is by invitation, that it holds significant strategic and security interests, then that's likely because you have that patronising subjective view that the US is always right, and our "enemies" are always wrong.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Russia has had a base in Syria long before Putin.....

That's irrelevant.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

No, that was your attempt to derail. But I upended that by pointing out that in the case of Crimea and Syria, Russia is there by invitation. With regards to the Ukraine and Syria, neither countries had invited US interference. So as usual, you're left hanging.

You have the facts wrong of course, but that's beside the point. In one thread you criticize infringement of sovereignty, and in the other you state countries have no rights (like sovereignty) that they can't enforce. You were caught trying to have it both ways.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

You have the facts wrong of course, but that's beside the point. In one thread you criticize infringement of sovereignty, and in the other you state countries have no rights (like sovereignty) that they can't enforce. You were caught trying to have it both ways.

Now I see where you jumped track. You said that Russia didn't have a right to a warm water port. I simply pointed out that of course, no countries have rights, only what they can force. Russia does have a right to warm water ports if they are offered them, which in the case of the two that the US are trying to deny them, they were in fact.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Now I see where you jumped track. You said that Russia didn't have a right to a warm water port. I simply pointed out that of course, no countries have rights, only what they can force. Russia does have a right to warm water ports if they are offered them, which in the case of the two that the US are trying to deny them, they were in fact.

Still trying to weasel out of your contradiction. I'm just going to leave you there.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Still trying to weasel out of your contradiction. I'm just going to leave you there.

You need to do just that as your dishonesty has tainted the thread. There is no compromise in the sovereignty of Crimea or Syria on the part of Russia. You know that and that's why you're exiting in such fashion.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Russia has had a base in Syria long before Putin.....

Yes the USSR built a tiny base back in 71. And well Putin had to build up forces in Syria didnt he? It isnt like Tartus has been fully functional much in the last couple of decades. Mostly since 2012.

How vital is Syria's Tartus port to Russia? - BBC News

"Tartus is not a real naval base," says Ruslan Aliev, the head of information at the well-connected Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Moscow.

He told the BBC: "It is just a point on the map to replenish food and water and carry out some occasional repairs. There are a maximum of 50 Russian sailors and specialist technicians there.
"It is just a symbolic place after the collapse of the Soviet Union (in 1991), showing we still have somewhere to send our ships. From a strategic point of view [Tartus] is insignificant."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

You don't understand the national security interest of a warm water port for a country who's mainland ports can be blocked by winter ice. If you don't understand that Russia's presence in Syria is by invitation, that it holds significant strategic and security interests, then that's likely because you have that patronising subjective view that the US is always right, and our "enemies" are always wrong.

"Not so, says a respected Moscow military think tank.
"Tartus is not a real naval base," says Ruslan Aliev, the head of information at the well-connected Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Moscow.
He told the BBC: "It is just a point on the map to replenish food and water and carry out some occasional repairs. There are a maximum of 50 Russian sailors and specialist technicians there.
"It is just a symbolic place after the collapse of the Soviet Union (in 1991), showing we still have somewhere to send our ships. From a strategic point of view [Tartus] is insignificant."
How vital is Syria's Tartus port to Russia? - BBC News

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

W

"Not so, says a respected Moscow military think tank.
"Tartus is not a real naval base," says Ruslan Aliev, the head of information at the well-connected Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Moscow.
He told the BBC: "It is just a point on the map to replenish food and water and carry out some occasional repairs. There are a maximum of 50 Russian sailors and specialist technicians there.
"It is just a symbolic place after the collapse of the Soviet Union (in 1991), showing we still have somewhere to send our ships. From a strategic point of view [Tartus] is insignificant."
How vital is Syria's Tartus port to Russia? - BBC News

It's all they've got to repair and replenish any ships that might be unable to get back to the Black Sea in the event of a blockage of the Bosphorus.

In the past year and a half, Russia has intervened militarily in two countries, Ukraine and Syria, where revolution and extreme political polarization threatened the governments of pro-Russian leaders. And that’s pretty much where the similarities between the campaigns end, except for one other commonality: Both Syria and Ukraine are home to Russian naval bases—in Tartus and Sevastopol, respectively.

The Link Between Putin’s Military Campaigns in Syria and Ukraine - The Atlantic

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

You're joking, right? :roll:

Assad is a brutal tyrant, from a family of brutal tyrants. He opened fired on protesters of his own free will. He used chemical weapons against his people of his own free will. He's tortured and executed thousands of his own people of his own free will as well.

Actually all of what you said is false.

Assad did not open fire on protesters.

"Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday." (Bloody Syrian Protests Continue - Defense/Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva)

The Arab League report noted that:

“In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.

”In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed." (http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf)

With regards to chemical weapons:

Assad did not do the chemical weapons attack in Ghouta.

"Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.[...] But she said her panel had not yet seen any evidence of Syrian government forces using chemical weapons, according to the BBC, but she added that more investigation was needed." (Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad's regime: U.N. official - Washington Times)

"A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated." (BERLIN: New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims | Syria | McClatchy DC)

"Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly rejected requests from his field commanders for approval to use chemical weapons, according to a report this weekend in a German newspaper.

The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs." (BERLIN: Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests to use chemical weapons, German paper says | National | McClatchy DC)

"This statement has now come under fire. In a 23-page report, two US experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that the attack could not have originated from "the heart" of the regime-controlled area.

In detail, the former United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and national security expert Theodore A. Postol explained that the rockets were much too short-range to have been fired from the center of the government-controlled areas. The "heart" of Damascus, they said, is between five and ten kilometers from the scene of the strike, while the missiles in question could only have flown two kilometers.

The reason for this unusually short range was that the attackers attached Sarin canisters on the rockets which impaired their ability to fly. This, the MIT experts say, would have curtailed their range from 20 kilometers to just two." (Analysts question US intel on Syria chem attack | World | DW.DE | 18.01.2014)

 

[polgara]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Actually all of what you said is false.

Assad did not open fire on protesters.

"Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday." (Bloody Syrian Protests Continue - Defense/Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva)

The Arab League report noted that:

“In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.

”In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed." (http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf)

With regards to chemical weapons:

Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

It seems that's it's mostly our MSM that is blaming Assad for various atrocities; the other countries that have investigated are saying otherwise, including the UN who also sent investigators. Strange....

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

It seems that's it's mostly our MSM that is blaming Assad for various atrocities; the other countries that have investigated are saying otherwise, including the UN who also sent investigators. Strange....

Regime change in Syria is a long term USFP ambition. It's really not that strange at all.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Greetings, Mr. Invisible. :2wave:

It seems that's it's mostly our MSM that is blaming Assad for various atrocities; the other countries that have investigated are saying otherwise, including the UN who also sent investigators. Strange....

Before the Arab League even came out with the report, they had sent in monitors on the ground to see what was going on and found "nothing frightening" at the beginning of their visit (WRAPUP 4-Nothing frightening seen in Syria protest hotbed -monitor | News by Country | Reuters), which culminated in the Arab League report which I cited above.

Assad is blamed for atrocities because it benefits the US and its allies in arguing their war for Syria.

 

[Morality Games]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

I'm right here dude. And to your shame, you have sat in support of all US military interventions from Afghanistan to Syria which have netted 12 million refugees combined, and the dust not settled as yet, gawd knows how many deaths and injuries in them all. No, you don't give a damn about people. You care only about US dominance and power. In fact I learned that a couple years ago when I first saw you defend the use of WMD on civilian targets.

Right or wrong to intervene, the U.S. is only fractionally responsible for the condition of those regions. Most of the blame rests on the shoulders of the people who actually live there.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Regime change in Syria is a long term USFP ambition. It's really not that strange at all.

Very much so, the US and its allies signed onto a plan to overthrow Assad according to Wikileaks. (WikiLeaks: Turkey involved in secret deal to overthrow Assad)

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Right or wrong to intervene, the U.S. is only fractionally responsible for the condition of those regions. Most of the blame rests on the shoulders of the people who actually live there.

Ok buddy sure thing.

 

[Morality Games]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Ok buddy sure thing.

Most of what drives conflict in the Middle East is ethnic or religious tension driven along tribal lines. Example being, Assad runs a sultanistic regime based on supplying the best opportunities (state or private) to people who are personally loyal to him, people who belong to his ethnic group or tribe. Consequently, people outside his tribe who give up resources (in the form of taxation) to create opportunities they can't benefit from hate him.

Consider that if ethnic and religious tension didn't exist in the Middle East, other countries would be hard pressed to manipulate the different factions in the Syria into fighting each other, because the factions wouldn't exist because there would be no hatreds to divide them.

Consequently, we can conclude that it is the people who have such hatreds and intolerances that are most fundamentally responsible for the condition of the Middle East.

That would be the people who live there.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

W

Most of what drives conflict in the Middle East is ethnic or religious tension driven along tribal lines. Example being, Assad runs a sultanistic regime based on supplying the best opportunities (state or private) to people who are personally loyal to him, people who belong to his ethnic group or tribe. Consequently, people outside his tribe who give up resources (in the form of taxation) to create opportunities they can't benefit from hate him.

Consider that if ethnic and religious tension didn't exist in the Middle East, other countries would be hard pressed to manipulate different the different factions in the Syria into fighting each other, because the factions wouldn't exist because there would be no hatreds to divide them.

Consequently, we can conclude that it is the people who have such hatreds and intolerances that are most fundamentally responsible for the condition of the Middle East.

Which, incidentally, would be the people who live there.

Well sure. No ones ignorant to the feuding that's been going on in the region for centuries on end. My point was that the US has gone into these countries and waged war for far longer periods than the two world wars carried on. The result has been power vacuums filled by extremists. 12 million refugees, hundreds of thousands of dead civillians, far more wounded, thousands of US soldiers lost and trillions of dollars wasted on our military adventurism. The "people who live there" are responsible for what they do. The US is responsible for what it has done.

 

[Morality Games]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

W

Well sure. No ones ignorant to the feuding that's been going on in the region for centuries on end. My point was that the US has gone into these countries and waged war for far longer periods than the two world wars carried on. The result has been power vacuums filled by extremists. 12 million refugees, hundreds of thousands of dead civillians, far more wounded, thousands of US soldiers lost and trillions of dollars wasted on our military adventurism. The "people who live there" are responsible for what they do. The US is responsible for what it has done.

This is a catch-22. If the United States buttresses up sultanistic regimes for the sake of regional stability and global prosperity/safety, we compromised on our democratic principles and repressed a group of people seeking freedom. If we directly or indirectly attempt to bring down sultanistic regimes and introduce Western culture, we destroyed regional stability and compromised global prosperity/safety. If we do absolutely nothing one way or another, we failed to live up to our duties as one of the world's leading powers when intervention could have saved lives. This last complaint surfaced particularly during the Rwandan Genocide, a cultural and geographic situation the United States couldn't be even more peripherally related to -- the fact we had little to do with that region historically only meant we had a far greater burden to get involved because we had the greatest chance of negotiating a settlement than interested parties whose motivations were mistrusted.

There's no ultimately correct answer to what policies the United States or any Power, great or small, should pursue in a given political crisis. Nobody knows the future, and nobody knows right from right in grey situations involving huge groups of morally checkered people.

It's all ****ty guesswork.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

This is a catch-22. If the United States buttresses up sultanistic regimes for the sake of regional stability and global prosperity/safety, we compromised on our democratic principles and repressed a group of people seeking freedom. If we directly or indirectly attempt to bring down sultanistic regimes and introduce Western culture, we destroyed regional stability and compromised global prosperity/safety. If we do absolutely nothing one way or another, we failed to live up to our duties as one of the world's leading powers when intervention could have potentially saved lives. This last complaint surfaced particularly during the Rwandan Genocide, a cultural and geographic situation the United States couldn't be even more peripherally related to -- the fact we had little to do with that region historically only meant we had a far greater burden to get involved because we had the greatest chance of negotiating a settlement.

There's no ultimately correct answer to what policies the United States or any Power, great or small, should pursue in a givens situation. Nobody knows the future, and nobody knows right from right in grey situations involving huge groups of morally checkered people.

I really could care less what people think of the US not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Saudi Arabia is our ally, and they're a very repressive regime. There's no morality or justification for what we've done to this region. And I resent the notion that the citizens of the Middle East, that are living their daily lives, feeding their families and ducking both US bombs and the bombs of the extremists within their midst, no longer contained by Hussein, Mubarak, Gadaffi and Assad, are of checkered morality. As though, the Chinese, French, Russians or Americans or any others are of superior morality.

 

[Gathomas88]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

Actually all of what you said is false.

Assad did not open fire on protesters.

"Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday." (Bloody Syrian Protests Continue - Defense/Middle East - News - Arutz Sheva)

The Arab League report noted that:

“In some zones, this armed entity reacted by attacking Syrian security forces and citizens, causing the Government to respond with further violence. In the end, innocent citizens pay the price for those actions with life and limb.

”In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed." (http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf)

With regards to chemical weapons:

So, basically, it's a "he said/she said," and you're automatically taking the side of Assad and notoriously biased Arab media sources for some bizarre reason. :roll:

You realize that the Assad regime was threatened with a similar uprising in the 1980s under Bashar's father, Hafez, correct? Are you also aware that he put the uprising down by basically massacring the inhabitants of an entire town? By some estimates, as many as 40,000 people might have been slaughtered by the Syrian Army over the course of the month long siege.

1982 Hama massacre

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Assads are blood thirsty autocratic, and possibly even totalitarian, tyrants. They have historically maintained their rule through violence, repression, and fear. This latest conflict is no different. It simply happened to spiral out of Bashar's control before he could quash it under heel.

I'm more than willing to grant that strong man tyrants can have their uses at the proper time and place. However, let's be honest here and call a spade a spade. In all likelihood, he did order the shooting of protesters, and he did order the use of chemical weapons.

 

[Morality Games]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

I really could care less what people think of the US not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Saudi Arabia is our ally, and they're a very repressive regime. There's no morality or justification for what we've done to this region. And I resent the notion that the citizens of the Middle East, that are living their daily lives, feeding their families and ducking both US bombs and the bombs of the extremists within their midst, no longer contained by Hussein, Mubarak, Gadaffi and Assad, are of checkered morality. As though, the Chinese, French, Russians or Americans or any others are of superior morality.

I'm an anarchist, ideologically. You don't need to tell me that a sovereign nation state has no moral justification for its behavior or policies.

However, that applies to every political organization that ever existed in humanity's well documented history. Lack of moral justification never gave Russia or China pause in anything they ever did to anyone ever in any situation. Stalin never hesitated for an instant because he seemed to lack moral justification, nor did Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or any other historical leader good or evil. Each of them served a cause that in their point-of-view mitigated their supposed transgressions.

Your resentments are equally irrelevant to me. Ordinary people feeding their families have prejudices. The collective prejudices of the American South's population is what powered the region's slave empire for generations, as well as Aztec mass ritual sacrifice (on the scale of tens of thousands per year) centuries previously.

Similarly, the prejudices ordinary people in the Middle East maintain toward one another is what has powered thousands of years of bloodshed. It is the source of power for both sultanistic dictators like Assad and his terrorist rivals.

If they didn't have those prejudices, both Assad and the terrorists would vanish into the historical ether. No more recruits, no more grassroots support, no more money.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

So, basically, it's a "he said/she said," and you're automatically taking the side of Assad and notoriously biased Arab media sources for some bizarre reason. :roll:

You realize that the Assad regime was threatened with a similar uprising in the 1980s under Bashar's father, Hafez, correct? Are you also aware that he put the uprising down by basically massacring the inhabitants of an entire town? By some estimates, as many as 40,000 people might have been slaughtered by the Syrian Army over the course of the month long siege.

1982 Hama massacre

I'm sorry, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Assads are blood thirsty autocratic, and possibly even totalitarian, tyrants. They have historically maintained their rule through violence, repression, and fear. This latest conflict is no different. It simply happened to spiral out of Bashar's control before he could quash it under heel.

I'm more than willing to grant that strong man tyrants can have their uses at the proper time and place. However, let's be honest here and call a spade a spade. In all likelihood, he did order the shooting of protesters, and he did order the use of chemical weapons.

Israeli National News is not a biased Arab source, but very pro-Israel.

Also, I see that you have no actual evidence to refute what I said.

 

[Montecresto]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

I'm an anarchist, ideologically. You don't need to tell me that a sovereign nation state has no moral justification for its behavior or policies.

However, that applies to every political organization that ever existed in humanity's well documented history. Lack of moral justification never gave Russia or China pause in anything they ever did to anyone ever in any situation. Stalin never hesitated for an instant because he seemed to lack moral justification, nor did Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, or any other historical leader good or evil. Each of them served a cause that in their point-of-view mitigated their supposed transgressions.

Your resentments are equally irrelevant to me. Ordinary people feeding their families have prejudices. The collective prejudices of the American South's population is what powered the region's slave empire for generations, as well as Aztec mass ritual sacrifice (on the scale of tens of thousands per year) centuries previously.

Similarly, the prejudices ordinary people in the Middle East maintain toward one another is what has powered thousands of years of bloodshed. It is the source of power for both sultanistic dictators like Assad and his terrorist rivals.

If they didn't have those prejudices, both Assad and the terrorists would vanish into the historical ether. No more recruits, no more grassroots support, no more money.

None of that is any of our business here in the US. You're an anarchist, how charming, I'm happy for you, but I'm only concerned as an American citizen and tax payer, how my country is interacting in the world. And my interests are in what our responsibilities are.

 

[Morality Games]

Re: Syria slams US-led coalition deadly strike against troops as 'act of aggression'

None of that is any of our business here in the US. You're an anarchist, how charming, I'm happy for you, but I'm only concerned as an American citizen and tax payer, how my country is interacting in the world. And my interests are in what our responsibilities are.

That's a very decisive way to put an issue that is by its historical development (and philosophical perplexity) is impossible to settle.

To begin with, the decisions over what the United States was responsible for or what are country was "about" in a global relations sense were made before either of us were born, by men like Eisenhower, Lincoln, and Jefferson, etc.

Ergo, Truman and Eisenhower, got us involved in the Middle East after the recession of the British Empire, at British instigation. All subsequent generations of American policy are just successors desperately trying to make ends meet in an increasingly hopeless situation.

Who is responsible for what was lost track of a long, long time ago.