Syria said to be hiding weapons, moving troops

I love how the media sells this as Assad hiding weapons I would suspect that even he knows there is little point in hiding them all he is doing is dispersing them to ensure some will survive as any one in the same boat would do.
 
Evil Assad must be destroyed to stop Iran from threatening the Petro Dollar! Which is totally not on the verge of hyperinflation or anything like the German Mark in 1923!.

Oh S#@3! I mean we want to save crying Syrian babies...
 
What is happening in Syria is most certainly a tragedy.

The real tragedy being that much of this is as a result of poor foreign policy of Western powers, particularly over the last 60 years, from both, poor choices and an unwillingness to admit to those poor decisions or help correct the fallout from them until such times as we have now, 30 or 40 years too late.

I don't know why it is, but our western foreign policy makers have demonstrated a great talent for supporting rogue regimes, tyrants and dictators in foreign countries which in almost every instance has turned and bitten us on the bum. We never seem to learn nor admit our mistakes, and until we start facing reality we are our own worst enemies.

It is hard to look at the names of some of those rogue regimes and governments we have supported over the last 60 years and not wonder if we are not mentally incompetent, as in almost every instance our own stupidity has turned to bite us on the bum, yet we steadfastly refuse to learn, in fact it is as if we take pride in our own stupidity.

Fulgencio Batista, Republic of Cuba 1952-1959.
Syngman Rhee, Republic of Korea (South Korea), 1948-1960.
Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic, 1930-1961.
Israel (Rogue Regime), 1948-
Ngo Dinh Diem, Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), 1955-1963.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran, 1953-1979.
Anastasio Somoza Garcia, Nicaragua, 1967-1979.
Military Junta in Guatemala, 1954-1982.
Military Junta in Bolivia, 1964-1982.
Military Junta in Argentina, 1976-1983.
Brazilian military government, 1964-1985.
François Duvalier and Jean-Claude Duvalier, Republic of Haiti, 1957-1971; 1971-1986.
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay, 1954-1989.
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines, 1965-1986.[8][9]
General Manuel Noriega, Republic of Panama, 1983-1989.
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile, 1973-1990.
Saddam Hussein, Republic of Iraq, 1982-1990.
General (military), Suharto Republic of Indonesia, 1975-1995.
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire/Congo, 1965-1997.
Hosni Mubarak, Egypt, 1981-2011.

Without a doubt the longest lasting and most troublesome of these and the one that is going to have the most far reaching implications, is our support of Israel, the fallout from which is already de-stabilising world security and is only going to get worse.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that for the last 60 years we have been fighting the ideological wars of capitalism vs communism and the over riding philosophy in those wars was the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, unfortunately the reality is that in most cases the enemy of my enemy has also turned out to be an ideological nut job as well.

Sadly while we may use the "suffering of the people" to justify regime change we invariably only replace them with regimes sympathetic to our cause and the people go on suffering.

So the reality is that if we bomb Syria we are only doing it to further our own political needs and if Assad was buying US arms this conflict would not even make the 11 o'clock news which basically means we are still fighting the same wars as before but now they are about economics.
 
Am I the only to that admits to the side effects?

It's the same tried and true formula for war in this country? The same 3 simple steps in bringing America to war. And ask yourself, before the invention of instant communication, back in the days when you just did what the government told you, no questions or thought given. America BROUGHT itself to war. But those bits of U.S. History are best kept blurred out of the curriculum.

But there are 3 simple steps to sway all of us into accepting war.

1st FABRICATE A CRISIS. Make a crisis, do the EXACT thing that your target country warns you not to do. Pen some dirty legislation. Build military bases surrounding them. Blow up some convoys, take close up photos with a wide angle lens of dead teenagers fighting "tyranny". Send some weapons to thugs and lie about it, buyout the airwaves to blur out news indicating the opposite, people will buy it. Or start a revolution, destabilize a country, plant evidence, just get yourself read for steps 2 and 3.

2nd WAIT FOR A REACTION. Feed this rehashed garbage over and over to us, to the masses, tell us this is "evil" "Immoral" Just keep shoving this drama that is fabricated and pretend to care so deeply for these deep injustices. In short, exploit usefor our emotions.

3rd SHAPE YOUR OWN SOLUTION TO YOUR INTEREST. Now thats us, the sheep are bought off, as we stammer looking to our "leaders" for the best solution that is surely in our "security" interests. We can be led to sign off and not question the coming bloodbath of intervention in Syria. When you let arms dealers and central bankers who are losing this game of chess flip the board this is what we get, and guess what? Us, all of us, will let them do whatever they want, push this all as far as we let them. Let them kill our sons and daughters. Thats why they do this, and STEP 3 is always the most cynical, and how America always gets to war, we buy the same old solution. Force, and history tells us, every Empire, denial or not that lives by force will end by force.

We can stop this, but as of now, we are all stuck divided in this indescion. It's simple why we are there, we need a evil, a scapegoat, so we can justify force against Iran, and any other country selling oil outside of the U.S. Dollar, the ONLY THING holding this phoney currency together. THAT'S IT. And the Powers at hand will DO ANYTHING to keep this ponzie rolling for just.... a .... bit..... longer....

Your expendable. And until now exploitable, especially via your morals and emotions. That's why this is done over and over again for over 160 years.
 
Last edited:
The problem here is that even if the Assad didn't use chemical weapons it is clear that having lead his country into a civil war that has killed 100,000 of his own people he needs to go one way or another.

My problem with the US approach to this is that they are unfortunately the boy that cried WMD and after the Bush/Cheney extravaganza in 2003 most people are fairly immune to the WMD cry further to this I really have to ask the question "Why doesn't the US want to wait for the UN report on its investigation of the attack"?

What is another two weeks in this mess (especially since he now wants to wait 9 days for Congress to take the rap), maybe a few thousand dead yet we all know there will be casualties from a US bombing campaign anyway so it will probably work out the same in the long run.

Then on top of all this what is the best possible outcome if Assad's regime collapses given that a sizable proportion of his opposition are just as dangerous to the west if not more?

I honestly do not see a win for anyone let alone the ordinary Syrian no matter what the outcome.
 
MontyB said:
The problem here is that even if the Assad didn't use chemical weapons it is clear that having lead his country into a civil war that has killed 100,000 of his own people he needs to go one way or another.

My problem with the US approach to this is that they are unfortunately the boy that cried WMD and after the Bush/Cheney extravaganza in 2003 most people are fairly immune to the WMD cry further to this I really have to ask the question "Why doesn't the US want to wait for the UN report on its investigation of the attack"?

What is another two weeks in this mess (especially since he now wants to wait 9 days for Congress to take the rap), maybe a few thousand dead yet we all know there will be casualties from a US bombing campaign anyway so it will probably work out the same in the long run.

Then on top of all this what is the best possible outcome if Assad's regime collapses given that a sizable proportion of his opposition are just as dangerous to the west if not more?

I honestly do not see a win for anyone let alone the ordinary Syrian no matter what the outcome.
Click to expand...


It's easier to get your war with Iran if your troops get in and get involved in open fighting themselves. Syria has a mutual defense pack with Iran. Like South Korea has with the U.S. America does not like nor can afford Iran or any other number of oil producers selling outside the U.S. dollar, because without that, our money is backed by nothing. America knows that if one nation pulls out, soon a domino effect will result. Spare massive debt backing our paper notes. Our global economic dominance depends on this because we don't produce enough to survive without being the world's reserve currency.

If you want it done right, do it yourself. That's why Washington is so adamant and so pompous on this issue of force.
 
lol Of course he is hiding his weapons. Our own emdia was kind enough to give away to him all the information: that strikes are being planned, where they will likely be targeted, etc. Ina ll the previous wars, going back to WWII, I am sure the Nazis could only dream of having a unpaid informant like this, better than any spy they could have planted :D
 
I would suggest that the vast majority of people have long ago given up on the US dollar as the world's reserve currency as soon as they realised that it is only backed by faith in the US economy, this is primarily why gold has skyrocketed in recent years.

The question for me though is what happens when this bombing campaign starts killing Russians in Syria as the Russians have a naval base there and by all accounts have advisors manning antiaircraft batteries.

One other thing,has anyone actually seen the proof that Assad used chemical weapons or even that an attack took place or are we just required believe a country that has manufactured the same excuse for war every 10 years.
 
MontyB said:
I would suggest that the vast majority of people have long ago given up on the US dollar as the world's reserve currency as soon as they realised that it is only backed by faith in the US economy, this is primarily why gold has skyrocketed in recent years.

The question for me though is what happens when this bombing campaign starts killing Russians in Syria as the Russians have a naval base there and by all accounts have advisors manning antiaircraft batteries.

One other thing,has anyone actually seen the proof that Assad used chemical weapons or even that an attack took place or are we just required believe a country that has manufactured the same excuse for war every 10 years.
Click to expand...


At this point what do you want to believe Mr. MontyB? Do you really think anything is different here?
 
Yossarian said:
At this point what do you want to believe Mr. MontyB? Do you really think anything is different here?
Click to expand...

What do I want to believe?
I want to believe that the west is once again going to destroy a country for the right reasons and not just to continue its ideological war.

What do I ACTUALLY believe?
1) There is to date no proof that chemical weapons were used other than the assertions from people looking for an excuse to go to war ie. vested interests, kind of like your banker telling you to borrow money and he just happens to have some on him.

2) Even if chemical weapons were used there is no proof on who used them, so we run the risk that we could be bombing the wrong side in order to replace it with a side that has used them.

3) Even though they may claim they have intercepted phone calls saying and I quote "chemical weapons may have been used" I suspect that those phone calls are all being intercepted by one source and being feed to other agencies to release, not an uncommon tactic in the process of making data look factual.

4) I just do not believe the source or find them to be any more credible than the guys denying the claims.

5) I think the timing is a little convenient we are currently seeing massive disquiet about US spying world wide which has created a lot of issues for western governments and all of a sudden we see they another imminent threat from WMDs flooding the media, in a world that has become used to the tactic where "bad news domestically = raise the terror threat" it is hard not to draw connections.

6) Why does this need to be carried out before the UN report on the attack is completed and released.
We can choose to trust the US claims that an attack has happened despite their past history of BSing on WMDs or we can wait 7 days and know for certain whether something has happened or not.
The process of rushing to get things done before it is too late to stop it generally leads me to believe there are other driving forces for this that perhaps may not be proven by the tests.
 
MontyB said:
What do I want to believe?
I want to believe that the west is once again going to destroy a country for the right reasons and not just to continue its ideological war.

What do I ACTUALLY believe?
1) There is to date no proof that chemical weapons were used other than the assertions from people looking for an excuse to go to war ie. vested interests, kind of like your banker telling you to borrow money and he just happens to have some on him.

2) Even if chemical weapons were used there is no proof on who used them, so we run the risk that we could be bombing the wrong side in order to replace it with a side that has used them.

3) Even though they may claim they have intercepted phone calls saying and I quote "chemical weapons may have been used" I suspect that those phone calls are all being intercepted by one source and being feed to other agencies to release, not an uncommon tactic in the process of making data look factual.

4) I just do not believe the source or find them to be any more credible than the guys denying the claims.

5) I think the timing is a little convenient we are currently seeing massive disquiet about US spying world wide which has created a lot of issues for western governments and all of a sudden we see they another imminent threat from WMDs flooding the media, in a world that has become used to the tactic where "bad news domestically = raise the terror threat" it is hard not to draw connections.

6) Why does this need to be carried out before the UN report on the attack is completed and released.
We can choose to trust the US claims that an attack has happened despite their past history of BSing on WMDs or we can wait 7 days and know for certain whether something has happened or not.
The process of rushing to get things done before it is too late to stop it generally leads me to believe there are other driving forces for this that perhaps may not be proven by the tests.
Click to expand...

When it comes to American Foreign Policy since the collapse of the USSR it's almost always tethered to other interests.


All the main reasons the U.S. is chasing direct involvement in Syria could probably be knocked down to just a few reasons. In all actuality its most likely a mix of all the different parameters removed from challenges to American Dominance in the region post 1991.


Also on one hand we have 120 years of American culture built on the explicit access to bountiful, cheap energy. As well as 50 plus years of global economic domination brought on by working the world oil market to trade only in our currency. The strategic positioning of Egypt, Syria, as well as Iraq and now Iran, all have very direct relations to America's access to critical, and I mean critical cheap energy.

That's one reason why, if not one of the largest why for the past 60 years the U.S. has had such direct influence and interests in the region, especially in regards to America's blind support of Israel. This Syria mess is nothing more than the next chapter in a shrinking universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top