The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Al-Faisal]

Really now?

Do you have any sources to back up your claim? Because from what I have seen and heard from sources like BBC, CNN, and others that we are still not in Syria and have not started bombing there.

So please try again Summer Time.

I'm having trouble taking your post serious. You're not in there now, so obviously your government has no intention of ever going in? No dislike of Syria at all for being an ally of Iran, a nation the US has been in opposition to for decades?

Take your "summer time" back to school with you. That's a childish insult to compensate for having little cognitive ability regarding US foreign policy. Where have you been for the last decade at least?

[Srboslavija]

Amazing result from the UK House of Commons.

Un-frikkin-beliavble.

Congrats on not being duped by the US war machine, again.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A good day for democracy perhaps. It is a bad day, however, for justice. I am dismayed that the United Kingdom will not be participating militarily in the Syrian Crisis.

A rather huge dilemma, rather. It's tempting to go in and do something about it, but we also have to contend with a massive anti-war sentiment caused by our mistakes in Iraq.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

France going it alone ? With what army ?

France has a massive Army. Larger than the UK's for that matter iirc. And I didn't say it wouldn't have US support as long as it goes in Obama's foreign policy of letting other countries take the lead will be appeased and he'll follow suit. The US might even go in without France taking the lead. Obama is very publicly on record about chemical weapons after all.

Larger than the UK, however nowhere close the Syrian army's fullest size, nor omnipotence (considering the latest Russian, Iranian, Chinese weapons gifts).

Awesome, UK is staying out of it. Both sides are crazy and letting them fight it out and hopping government wins is the best option.

I hope the Syrian resistance government wins too.

Cameron can't do anything without parliament's approval. Unless the report on the chemical weapons, which comes back on Saturday, presents undeniable proof of chemical weapon use by the Assad regime, we probably won't get involved. I mean everyone knows Assad did but by the time UN inspectors got there the actual evidence was already disintegrating.

Ed Balls isn't a nickname. It's the guys name. Poor guy.

Sure, Assad must have done it, despite there being no reason for him to do it whatsoever nor any other attacks which would have happened if he had actually done it

I know right?! #BlameAssad for everything!

CNN is really over doing it. The way they are commenting on the news about the vote in the UK, it seems the UK.-US relations have completely collapsed. Seems they expected the UK. to follow the US lead no matter what.

Another country that f...cked it up in the eyes of the U.S ? Don't worry, Brits. We (Dutch) know the feeling. Cannabis, legal prostitution, welfare state. Regardless of what we're doing we're the socialist bad guy anyway. You're in good company.

I think we might be next to receive the demonisation treatment... that is, if we finally get Flanby to say no. (We need larger rallies, bigger protests than all the past pro-Syria Al-Assad rallies we could have ever organised).

Well then. I suppose we are done here, yes? That was fun, nothing like a little international dickwaving to start off the fall semester.

Now whats going on with Miley Cyrus...

So that leaves the U.S, Australia, France, Germany ? I thought Canada too ?

It leaves the United States, as well as ourselves, Israel (which already bombs with impunity), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, in addition to Neo-Ottoman Erdogan.

I sincerely hope this massive waving of sabres comes to an end.

It leaves France and the US realistically. Germany and Australia would not be able to undertake independent military action in Syria.

France wants proof before joining in. It's not looking good for the US.

Some of us already know there is no proof, some of us furthermore strongly oppose another imperial intervention, whilst some of us are even willing to push to the point of overthrowing Flanby (François Hollande) at last, along with Sarkophage's UMP, if possible.

France wants proof before joining in. It's not looking good for the US.

Apparently, Obama is considering to do solo strikes without allies based on some sources.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html

I can't believe despite everything in its way, the POTUS still wants a strike.

He has lost his mind, has allowed campaign donations from corporate/conglomerate elite to corrupt him utterly I dare say.

Hey I have no stake in this fight my democratically elected representatives just said no to any kind of action. I doubt the U.S. would take action on it's own but Hollande might seize the chance to distract the French public. So Intervention might still be on the cards.

France going it alone ? With what army ?

We were beaten by our colonies time then again, which to me is a good thing since it brought the brutal old-colonial era to an end whilst taught us somewhat to reflect upon our past as well as take a good look at ourselves (at least some of us are doing so, including myself) (only to have to witness it being replaced by a new edition sadly).

And I love the little comment about Obama, because we have not even gotten into Syria yet and you are calling him the next Bush...even if Bush went into Iraq in a short amount of time.

I hope you do like that comment, since Obama is another Bush. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, and then proceeded to expanded the USA's conflicts in Pakistan and Yemen, then Libya, and now seems eager to get into Syria. Has he even suggested the possibility that another faction involved in Syria (such as Al Qaeda) could have been responsible?
No. He is eager to go and topple a government that is on good terms with Iran and Russia. That's what the Obama administration really wants.

Indeed. Furthermore, what this is increasingly commencing to look like, is either another Nicaragua where the Pentagon remained behind the scenes leading a coalition backing the contras (also behind the scenes) to pillage their way across Sandinista Nicaragua, or we are seeing something quite similar to Vietnam, where it took several US administrations to slowly mobilise the process towards going to war with the nation, if I recall exquisitely. I could also say it is similar to an 1990s Algeria situation where our DGSE destabilised it indirectly, or similar to how the Pentagon armed Jonas Savimbi in Angola.

Amazing result from the UK House of Commons.

Un-frikkin-beliavble.

Congrats on not being duped by the US war machine, again.

Indeed, long live the British Parliament for resisting the trigger-pressing urge.

A good day for democracy perhaps. It is a bad day, however, for justice. I am dismayed that the United Kingdom will not be participating militarily in the Syrian Crisis.

A rather huge dilemma, rather. It's tempting to go in and do something about it, but we also have to contend with a massive anti-war sentiment caused by our mistakes in Iraq.

How was it only "mistakes"? Whence most of the things that occurred during the Occupation were literally deliberate? Not to mention the presence of private military corporations such as Blackwater being there to foment sectarian strife in the country?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Amazing result from the UK House of Commons.

Un-frikkin-beliavble.

Congrats on not being duped by the US war machine, again.

Indeed, long live the British Parliament for resisting the trigger-pressing urge.

In fact, if I were Prime Minister, I would effectively go it alone, ceasing to listen to every signle American recommendation unless it proves to work, and basically do what's important for Britain, by Britain. Since the people and MPs rejected intervention I would bold phone Washington and say: OXI.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Indeed, long live the British Parliament for resisting the trigger-pressing urge.

In fact, if I were Prime Minister, I would effectively go it alone, ceasing to listen to every signle American recommendation unless it proves to work, and basically do what's important for Britain, by Britain. Since the people and MPs rejected intervention I would bold phone Washington and say: OXI.

Well said.

As for me: If I were Chairman of a new Sixth Republic, I would tell the corporations & military trigger-exalted commanders to go to... sleep, not to mention... to shut their blathering mouths. In the name of the people of our nation.

[Divair]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

'MURICA!

[Democratic Koyro]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

That's the nail in the democrats coffin for re-election prospects in 2016 then.

[Free Tristania]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

That's the nail in the democrats coffin for re-election prospects in 2016 then.

Yap.. they are going to be slaughtered. There will probably be no Democratic president for the first decade or so.

[Al-Faisal]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

Just amazing. At least Bush II had a "coalition" to aid in his war mongering. Obama apparently isn't as popular, is less skilled at bribery, or both.

[Thanatttynia]

A good day for democracy perhaps. It is a bad day, however, for justice. I am dismayed that the United Kingdom will not be participating militarily in the Syrian Crisis.

A rather huge dilemma, rather. It's tempting to go in and do something about it, but we also have to contend with a massive anti-war sentiment caused by our mistakes in Iraq.

Indeed. It's very annoying, especially since the premises of the two wars are really quite different.

A good day for democracy perhaps. It is a bad day, however, for justice. I am dismayed that the United Kingdom will not be participating militarily in the Syrian Crisis.

The fears of another Iraq. As the PM said this isn't like Iraq, although I understand why some people think with mission creep it could turn into that.

I understand.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

Just amazing. At least Bush II had a "coalition" to aid in his war mongering. Obama apparently isn't as popular, is less skilled at bribery, or both.

There isn't any possible way that Obama is coming out of this international clusterfuck looking like a hero.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

'MURICA!

This satire made me laugh.

That's the nail in the democrats coffin for re-election prospects in 2016 then.

Yap.. they are going to be slaughtered. There will probably be no Democratic president for the first decade or so.

Indeed, whilst let us hope they do not vote Republicans either. In fact we should never allow the two-party system to fool us.

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

Just amazing. At least Bush II had a "coalition" to aid in his war mongering. Obama apparently isn't as popular, is less skilled at bribery, or both.

Indeed, gobsmacking. In all aspects. This is looking like our country now somewhat. Flanby Hollande behaving as if he were Sarkophage by going into Mali, whilst almost getting our country directly involved into the Syria cesspool which the DGSE has been partly involved in for some time itself.

[Grand Britannia]

Have fun with that, US.
http://www.thereporteronline.com/articl ... -if-needed

'MURICA!

Freedom and Democracy is Non-Negotiable.

All countries with oil need to be destroyed and dominated by the Holy American Empire merica.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

'MURICA!

Freedumb/Freedoom and Democrazy/Doomocracy is Non-Negotiable.

All countries with oil need to be destroyed and dominated by the Holy American Empire merica.

Yes, I know...

[The Kingdom of Nea Hellas]

Hopefully in the end, everyone will back off, and let events in Syria continue on their own course.

[New Libertarian States]

Freedumb/Freedoom and Democrazy/Doomocracy is Non-Negotiable.

All countries with oil need to be destroyed and dominated by the Holy American Empire merica.

Yes, I know...

FER FREEDOM AND DEMOCRECER!!!

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Yes, I know...

FER FREEDOM AND DEMOCRECER!!!

Liberté (Ridding one's sovereignty), Égalité (Leeching the resources of bombed nation), Fraternité (Literally spreading doomocracy whilst forcing non-mutual relationships on 'democratised' (er... conquered?) nations with their new masters)!

(Reserved trademark of the Fifth French Republic's ruling elite, incorporated, as well as the rest of the democrazy-spreading mob NATO (Neo-Colonialolz Atlantic Terrorising Organisation...er I meant Nobel Atlantic Transferring-Democracy Organisation).

[The Kingdom of Nea Hellas]

Yes, I know...

FER FREEDOM AND DEMOCRECER!!!

FER FREEDOM AND THE MINIMUM WAGE! WAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zaharawi]

When you watch the debate that was held today in Britain's parliament, you get a totally different reason on why David Cameron wants to intervene in this conflict. His justification seems to be to prevent the Assad regime from carrying out another large scale use of chemical weapon. The problem with that is that in the process of waiting for the UN specialist to conclude their investigation, waiting for parliaments from many of this countries to debate, bring it back to the United Nation for further deliberation---the Assad regime is moving those dangerous chemicals to areas where there is highly chance that any attacks on their weapons will involve high numbers of casualties. There are several media organizations that warns that Assad is moving large amounts of weapons to heavily populated areas in Syria. Do we actually think that any attack on Assad's weapons won't involve large numbers of casualties?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

When you watch the debate that was held today in Britain's parliament, you get a totally different reason on why David Cameron wants to intervene in this conflict. His justification seems to be to prevent the Assad regime from carrying out another large scale use of chemical weapon. The problem with that is that in the process of waiting for the UN specialist to conclude their investigation, waiting for parliaments from many of this countries to debate, bring it back to the United Nation for further deliberation---the Assad regime is moving those dangerous chemicals to areas where there is highly chance that any attacks on their weapons will involve high numbers of casualties. There are several media organizations that warns that Assad is moving large amounts of weapons to heavily populated areas in Syria. Do we actually think that any attack on Assad's weapons won't involve large numbers of casualties?

Media is disgusting, feeding the hype of which supposedly he is moving weapons into cities. Its once more justification for indiscriminate bombings similar to the past "noble" interventions.

[George Kaplan]

I'm sincerely mixed.

On one hand I'm slightly annoyed that it took this long to have this discussion. Over 100K people have died, but only after chemical weapons were used are we now debating intervention. I want chemical weapons to be taboo in warfare as much as they next guy, but what about the deaths? Shouldn't that be taboo too?

On the other hand, I'm skeptical that limited intervention will really accomplish anything... whatsoever. We are not going to target chemical weapons or factories (out of fear of contamination), we have no intention of regime change (Assad won't leave unless he is forcibly removed), and most analysts have already concluded that missiles won't be a game changer.

So what the hell are we doing there?

[Zaharawi]

When you watch the debate that was held today in Britain's parliament, you get a totally different reason on why David Cameron wants to intervene in this conflict. His justification seems to be to prevent the Assad regime from carrying out another large scale use of chemical weapon. The problem with that is that in the process of waiting for the UN specialist to conclude their investigation, waiting for parliaments from many of this countries to debate, bring it back to the United Nation for further deliberation---the Assad regime is moving those dangerous chemicals to areas where there is highly chance that any attacks on their weapons will involve high numbers of casualties. There are several media organizations that warns that Assad is moving large amounts of weapons to heavily populated areas in Syria. Do we actually think that any attack on Assad's weapons won't involve large numbers of casualties?

Media is disgusting, feeding the hype of which supposedly he is moving weapons into cities. Its once more justification for indiscriminate bombings similar to the past "noble" interventions.

Are you actually suggesting that the chance that such actions are being carried out by Assad is unlikely? That's ludicrous....Its almost like saying that Assad did not use chemical weapons, which is equally rubbish.

[Shofercia]

Media is disgusting, feeding the hype of which supposedly he is moving weapons into cities. Its once more justification for indiscriminate bombings similar to the past "noble" interventions.

Are you actually suggesting that the chance that such actions are being carried out by Assad is unlikely? That's ludicrous....Its almost like saying that Assad did not use chemical weapons, which is equally rubbish.

Is there definite proof for Assad using chem weps? If so, please cite it. "Insurgent said so" doesn't count.