The Syria Crisis

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Syria was a former French possession, so there may be interests there still.

No wonder the British don't want in.

"If NATO is going to bring those surrender-monkeys in, this is a conflict we English aren't fighting!"

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

No wonder the British don't want in.

"If NATO is going to bring those surrender-monkeys in, this is a conflict we English aren't fighting!"

Do you remember than the French and British are supposed to be friends now for a little more than a hundreds years ?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Do you remember than the French and British are supposed to be friends now for a little more than a hundreds years ?

They were never on good terms. There is the Hundred Years War, Seven Years War, Colonial Conflicts, African resource contest; you name it.

Though now they are pretty much contesting it with each other on the football field. Alongside the Germans, Dutch and technically the rest of Europe. That is the only reason why the Turkish considered themselves to be Europeans and joined the footballing scene because they stopped swapping lead and started swapping hard tackles, injuries and red cards.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

They were never on good terms. There is the Hundred Years War, Seven Years War, Colonial Conflicts, African resource contest; you name it.

The Entente Cordiale? Two World Wars? The Suez Campaign? At one point there was a *very seriously considered* proposal to unite the French and British nations in the middle of the second world war. I wonder how Europe would look like had that come to pass (given that it would make the postwar Franco-German cooperation -- the backbone of European integration -- somewhat more difficult).

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I am surprised that France called for action in Syria. So what's in it for France? Anyone want to elaborate?

Former colonial possession; historic interest. And the French are a remarkably jingoistic people at times, being that France still sees itself as a world power and all. France led the Western powers over intervention in Libya; the campaign in Mali boosted Hollande's popularity despite some military setbacks. La Gloire, the drug of all French leaders since the kings of old.

People recall French opposition to the Iraq war and the flood of retaliatory American propaganda regarding the "surrender monkeys" and so on, and forget that most of the world, unless strong-armed by the US, distrusted that war from the start.

Now this isn't all "good news" even from the Western perspective. The same tendency that led France to oppose the Jihadist takeover of Mali also led France to topple without so much as batting an eye some very promising indigenous anti-colonial African leaders, like Thomas Sankara. Good old exploitative colonialism...

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Former colonial possession; historic interest. And the French are a remarkably jingoistic people at times, being that France still sees itself as a world power and all. France led the Western powers over intervention in Libya; the campaign in Mali boosted Hollande's popularity despite some military setbacks. La Gloire, the drug of all French leaders since the kings of old.

People recall French opposition to the Iraq war and the flood of retaliatory American propaganda regarding the "surrender monkeys" and so on, and forget that most of the world, unless strong-armed by the US, distrusted that war from the start.

Now this isn't all "good news" even from the Western perspective. The same tendency that led France to oppose the Jihadist takeover of Mali also led France to topple without so much as batting an eye some very promising indigenous anti-colonial African leaders, like Thomas Sankara. Good old exploitative colonialism...

Thanks. I think if Obama can get support from both the British and French, then it is very likely that some action will be taken. Otherwise, there is very little chance that the US will go in alone.

[Badkarma 1]

So why is the press trying to push him toward striking Syria?
CNN is currently waiting for him to speak in the rise garden, and all I'm hearin is if he don't do somethin he's gonna look weak.
Are the ratings that bad?
He says he's ready to say "SHOOT!" But will wait till the congress is back in session and gets permission from them first. Stay tuned kids!

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

So why is the press trying to push him toward striking Syria?

Because "we're sitting this one out and doing nothing" doesn't draw as much attention as "we're going in to blow things up and bust some skulls." Why do you think that sports like American football draw more viewers than sports like tennis or golf? Same reason (although the sports lack explosions).

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Because "we're sitting this one out and doing nothing" doesn't draw as much attention as "we're going in to blow things up and bust some skulls." Why do you think that sports like American football draw more viewers than sports like tennis or golf? Same reason (although the sports lack explosions).

Obviously you've never watched NASCAR.

[ganbaru]

Obama will hold off on Syria strike until Congress has its say
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97T0NB20130831

President Barack Obama on Saturday backed away from an imminent military strike against Syria to seek the approval of the U.S. Congress, in a decision that likely delays U.S. action for at least 10 days.

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

So why is the press trying to push him toward striking Syria?
CNN is currently waiting for him to speak in the rise garden, and all I'm hearin is if he don't do somethin he's gonna look weak.
Are the ratings that bad?
He says he's ready to say "SHOOT!" But will wait till the congress is back in session and gets permission from them first. Stay tuned kids!

No, the press is under the direction of the government, not the other way around. The western powers have decided that it was Syria government who has used the chemical weapons. You see the media carefully orchestrated a discussion that focuses on whether to attack or not, and away from questioning the base reason of such an attack.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

That's my main reason for doubting this. I mean Assad has gotten away with his war for all this time, why would he start using chemical weapons right now that he is basically winning when anyone knows that that's exactly what the U.S. France and U.K. need to have an excuse to finally attack?

Oh I've seen leaders of state making completely retarded decisions before, I'm not excluding this, but until proven otherwise I'd rather assume that they have a brain.

Moreover I don't quite understand how can U.K. and U.S. not feeling embarrassed to use that "casus belli" again, after the debacle of the non-existent mass destruction weapons of Iraq.

Oh and BTW I don't think that Russia is being more objective, Putin is probably just protecting his interests and nothing more than that. We also know that he never had sympathies toward Islamic rebellions and he probably thinks, with a reason, that he has a lot more chances to be friend with Assad than with whoever is fighting to replace him.

Have to agree here. It does not make sense for the Assad government to use chemical weapons now after all that winning.


I really don't like how the media, even the cnn source just now was spinning on to justify military intervention. And they did that by portraying Russia and China as greedy pigs who closed their eyes on murdered children, and only care about their financial gain. Who are they kidding here. Russia weapon trade with Syria for example, actually only made up 1% of their weapon export, and i bet Russia was in for their political interest in the region, which probably will be too complicated to pass it off to brainless reader.

Meanwhile, Syria was portrayed as China's main trading hub in the region because China ranks third in Syria's export sector.... Really? China rank second in Saudi Arab's export. Rank second in Israel. Ranked third in US and even first in Australia. That argument can be used for most country out there

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Have to agree here. It does not make sense for the Assad government to use chemical weapons now after all that winning.


I really don't like how the media, even the cnn source just now was spinning on to justify military intervention. And they did that by portraying Russia and China as greedy pigs who closed their eyes on murdered children, and only care about their financial gain. Who are they kidding here. Russia weapon trade with Syria for example, actually only made up 1% of their weapon export, and i bet Russia was in for their political interest in the region, which probably will be too complicated to pass it off to brainless reader.

Meanwhile, Syria was portrayed as China's main trading hub in the region because China ranks third in Syria's export sector.... Really? China rank second in Saudi Arab's export. Rank second in Israel. Ranked third in US and even first in Australia. That argument can be used for most country out there

Media's clear desire for war, I believe, is throwing fuel on the fire for the rest of us to dislike it even more. If they had tried to attempt to display a clear balance of opinion I might have been less sceptical of all the "proof" they are throwing around.

[Fireminer]

Well, it's hard to live right in this muddy river of Media Industry...

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

And they did that by portraying Russia and China as greedy pigs who closed their eyes on murdered children, and only care about their financial gain. Who are they kidding here.

You know, they could be right. I'm not saying that they are, but the possibility exists. It still doesn't matter. People are rightfully upset that innocent civilians of all ages are being injured and killed by this conflict. The issue is that any intervention from our end won't protect them. Our involvement won't immediately bring a long-lasting peace, or even stability to the region. It's frustrating, but we have to accept that.

Foreign (hopefully not just American) intervention has the potential to bring the conflict to an end more quickly, but it's questionable whether this would be a good thing in the long run. It's similar to the argument against flooding Africa with foreign food to stave off hunger; you bring temporary relief, but ultimately prolong the state that you're trying to eliminate.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

You know, they could be right. I'm not saying that they are, but the possibility exists. It still doesn't matter. People are rightfully upset that innocent civilians of all ages are being injured and killed by this conflict. The issue is that any intervention from our end won't protect them. Our involvement won't immediately bring a long-lasting peace, or even stability to the region. It's frustrating, but we have to accept that.

Foreign (hopefully not just American) intervention has the potential to bring the conflict to an end more quickly, but it's questionable whether this would be a good thing in the long run. It's similar to the argument against flooding Africa with foreign food to stave off hunger; you bring temporary relief, but ultimately prolong the state that you're trying to eliminate.

In this day and age of easily accessible markets, who cares?

Seriously, who does? There is money to be made from killing people, "innocent" or not. *sarcastic*

[ganbaru]

France says it cannot act alone on Syria as U.S. hesitates
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97K0EL20130901

Republicans McCain, Graham say cannot support limited Syria strikes
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97U0ED20130831

[sbg711]

(unless already been posted)

OWNED!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg-h01VrqgM

[Sumeragi]

I find it hard to believe due to it being FOX, which is pretty sad. Really, you did eat away your credibility too much, FOX.


Back to the topic at hand: Expected. There was already too much evidence.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I find it hard to believe due to it being FOX, which is pretty sad. Really, you did eat away your credibility too much, FOX.


Back to the topic at hand: Expected. There was already too much evidence.

In theory, if there is proof that the chemical weapons came from Saudi Arabia, would ANYTHING happen?

I have trouble believing that the Saudis can ever be punished for anything, they are too powerful.

[Sumeragi]

Don't give a damn about Saudi, really. All I care is Bashar winning.