Rio Cana wrote:I would consider Pakistan a real problem for the US not Syria. Why do you think the US and NATO have been having so many problems in Afghanistan. Today they even had on the news about a US base being attacked in Afghanitan. The US and its Northern alliance allies in the beginning had largely destroyed the Taliban but the Taiiban rebuilt itself in Pakistan. Documentaries from the UK. even have reported that the Pakistanis were training, arming and giving them intel . But the West does nothing. Nukes ,do you think it could be because they have nukes.
Edit - Forgot to mention that in that UK. documentary they mentioned that some Taliban want to negotiate with the West. But these Taliban leaders cannot without Pakistani approval. And it seems they are not ready to give it.
Its not just that. I read once about an ISI-RAW-CIA etcetera cabal in Pakistan to destabilise it, to literally keep the nation subjugated by keeping it under conflict, the same applies to Afghanistan. Furthermore, joint CIA, MI6, DGSE, ISI, Mossad, Saudi GIP, Qatari State Security, AIVD, BND amongst others collaboration in different past historical events, including the training of SAVAK during Pahlavi's time, is also evidence as to why I do not question this possibility.
Grand Britannia wrote:Souriya Al-Assad should know most large explosions make mushroom shapes...those are not inherent to nukes....
This is most certainly true. However we cannot be for certain what were these weapons utilised against Syrians from Israel & co. I do wish to see in the future a United Nations investigation to determine whether or not there was radiation emanated from these massive explosions.
Wrong. Iran had over 586 starting candidates in its most recent elections. Which were the most contested ones yet. Furthermore, the Ayatollah's role is more of a ceremonial religious role. The elected government rules the nation.
Grand Ayatollah & Supreme Leader Sayyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, as well as the Revolutionary Guards Council furthermore have an additional task, to make sure that the Iranian government does not get hijacked by moles working for external nations. If they suddenly suspected an elected official of such, said official would be heavily scrutinised.
Nonetheless, this is to preserve Iranian sovereignty. Additionally, I should also make it be noted that whilst Iran is supposedly "theocratic", its government, especially under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has pursued secularised policies in addition to some level of socialism into the economy, including nationalised petrol Nasser style.
Hassan Rouhani is furthermore likelier to move towards some more secularisation in some areas. On other notes however, it should be taken into more consideration that comparing Iran with Saudi Arabia:
80% of Iranian women are either educated or employed. In retrospect, Saudi Arabian women face the exact opposite in majority.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Chemical weapons were shipped to Italy in 1943(?), when the ship carrying them was hit by Axis aircraft and released agent into a port city.
The event was widely denied as the shipment was supposed to be secret.
The Soviets and Nazis both had very large chemical weapon capabilities and stockpiles, yet despite how horrendous the conflict on the Eastern Front was, they never utilised them against one another.
Many of the reasons for this stem around the vulnerability of a deployed chemical stockpile, chemical units and the very high risk of such munitions being captured by the enemy and then used against you.
The Iran-Iraq War was a huge chemical fight, and was just thirty years ago. Not that this was really touched upon in the two UN resolutions written to end the conflict.
There may have been limited chemical weapons use by either side in Korea, but I honestly have no idea on that one.
Nazis did utilise biochemical weapons to gas Soviet citizens in the millions besides organising random firing squads to shoot them off into ditches...
Korea saw before Vietnam the massive utilisation of napalm, white phosphorous, amongst other biochemical agents over North Korean territory, which is still contaminating a huge proportion of their agricultural fields today, henceforth explaining the bigger issue in the food crisis.
New Chalcedon wrote:Divair wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/obama-strike-syria-congress-kerry
Kerry says Obama has the right to strike Syria even if Congress votes against it.
Kerry is wrong. Not only does the Constitution specifically arrogate to Congress the power to declare war, but the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (a document oft-cited by advocates of the Imperial Presidency) only authorises the President to begin offensive operations:(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
If US forces, installations or possessions are attacked, the President may respond as (s)he sees fit; however, beginning offensive operations absent such a justification requires Congressional approval.Alien Space Bats wrote:You'd have been safer had you drawn the line at 75 (and not 90) years. Britain considered using gas in Iraq back in the 1920's, but failed to effect the needed conversion of artillery ordnance into gravity bombs; Italy used it in Ethiopia back in the 1930's.
Not to mention the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and against Kurdish civilians during the 1980s.
This, combined with the fact of which our Western countries supplied Hussein with his stockpiles with the assistance of our regional puppet regime allies, including the Zionists in Tel Aviv.
Alien Space Bats wrote:Souriya Al-Assad wrote:The sole thing I see coming from you is an over the top megalomaniac Social Darwinian, ethnocentric, jingoistic view of the world, or of reality for this matter.
Says the unreconstructed Stalinist dinosaur. Back in the 60's and 70's, people like you listened to Pravda in order to know what color to claim the sky was.
Yes, I can see your inherent, polarised, Cold War, McCarthyism bias.
Alien Space Bats wrote:The Mataniya Islands wrote:That most certainly does not make it "safe" or "not dangerous", as I have already stated white phosphorus burns through human flesh rapidly and does not stop until all of thefleshphosphorus is gone.
Corrected. It's not a chemical form of "grey goo".The Mataniya Islands wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do hope you are not justifying what the United States has done to innocent people?
Current international treaties forbid the use of incendiaries on civilian populations or in "civilian areas" (cf. the Fourth Geneva Convention [1949] and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons [1983]); the debate on WP use in Iraq focussed on its use against enemies fighting areas that were believed to have been abandoned by civilians. Keep in mind, after all, that there is no prohibition of the use of incendiaries like WP on enemy forces, save where those forces are co-located with civilians; if enemy soldiers hole up in a town and the civilian population flees, those enemy forces and the buildings within which they are sheltering effectively become fair game.
Also, there is a general exception to the foregoing where white phosphorus (or any other incendiary) is being used, not as an incendiary per se, but for obscuration (i.e., to generate covering smoke).
So I'm a little mystified by your use of the term "innocent" in this context: It would seem to me that no combatant could possibly be thought of as an "innocent", at least so long as they are still in arms.
In Iraq there are rising petitions as well as documentations recently depicting in sheer detail the consequences civilians there are paying in the long-term for the utilisation of depleted uranium rounds, white phosphorous, amongst other biochemical/radiological weapons deployed in Iraq. If you want I can bring some links for you later.
Kurdish people (as you will note in the Kurdish sources I linked to a while back) already see the events in Syrian Kurdistan as a NATO-Turkey-Gulf conspiracy to destroy them. They are not far off, the al-Qaeda units fighting them or genociding them are pouring in from Turkey with NATO weaponry. Syria's Bashar Al-Assad has already stated or at least hinted his support of an autonomous or even fully independent Syrian Kurdistan which would link up with the PKK in Turkey. In addition, the YPG has on several cases with some PKK forces in Syria fought against the FSA etcetera to recapture several districts to give them back to Dimashq.
Its quite possible both Syria in addition to Iran have agreed to make their Kurdistans independent before our Western elites decided to hijack the Kurdish cause for their purposes.
Danhanjeedh wrote:Rio Cana wrote:Syria was in economic downturn before the civil war started. At least there infrastructure was intact. This civil war has manage to destroy much of there infrastructure and economy. And then all those weapons they are buying are increasing there debt. Which means, after this civil war ends there economy will be in shambles. There will be construction work to rebuild but chances are they will have to take foreign loans, if nations loan to them, at very high interest. In the end, however wins, the regular Syrian citizen will be paying for it. Chances are many will migrate to Europe.
If Assad remains in power then he will recieve trillions of dollars for free from Russia, Iran and China. So even in economic view its better for Assad to stay
Yes, he might receive hundreds of millions to several billions €s over the short-term from them, perhaps more in the long-term, thus the Syrian state is far from being doomed economically.
Now back to ASB...
I know you love your country, I love my nation too, however I do not support any slightest bit of what our leaders have been doing, nor should you in my opinion. Furthermore, let us be clear, I have no hate for the Americans themselves. I only loathe the thing ruling us that we Europeans have in common with North Americans: the military-industrialised-complex. These madmen amongst other elites running the cesspool alongside them have directed our countries into insane foreign policies, which if you look upon this properly, amounts of imperialism. If you want a simple source I suggest you look to read the "Open Vains of Latin America", the "Betrayal of Africa", amongst other writings in addition to research papers on neo-colonialism to better comprehend what I am speaking of.
In addition, let us place the Cold War into perspective, this time without taking much of a side. Let us compare how either side's allies came into being.
Communism, Socialism, as well as their derivatives worldwide, whether Soviet or Chinese aligned, mostly sprang from popular movements. We could technically compare these to the modernised contemporary time where the so-called "tide" in Latin America occurred, where the people, after finally removing the vile right-wing regimes from power, staged elections over time that elected sweeping socialist/communist (somewhat) governments to power across the region, most notably Venezuela's Chavistas. In addition, compared to distorted popular perception here in the West, these governments have actually resulted in tonnes of growth as well as development compared to what was under the right-wing regimes of old. In Venezuela alone, Comrade Commandente Hugo Chavez helped reduce poverty by half, helped double the Venezuelan economy, whilst instilled a form of Communist/Socialist government with interesting democratic principles, including transparency. He even Had his own personal hotline for the population to call, as well as channel where one could see him respond to these calls. 1 2 3 4
Returning to the subject of Communism, most of these movements were not authorised into being nor fomented by USSR or Chinese in the first place, contrary to the predominant conceptualisation of the Cold War. Most of these movements commenced on their own, separately. It was a trend, it was a popular ideology in newly independent nations. In some cases, some Communist governments DID try to have decent relations & economic ties with our Western regimes, only to be rejected, as in the cases of Castro as well as Ho Chi Minh. The latter one even promised to be good friends if he could receive agricultural aid to develop his agricultural dominated economy. This was refused by our Western governments. Both went to the Communist bloc for help as well as support.
In the Vietnamese conflict, had it not been for the deliberate halt to the electoral process that the US leaders organised in favour of their right-wing tyrannical ally in Saigon (Ngo Dinh Diem), there would have not been a Vietnamese war to follow suit. In Korea it was the same issue. Rhee Sygman was imposed, elections of reunification were halted.
In general most Communist countries tended to want to be neutral or even friends with both sides at the same time, however went to lean towards the Communist bloc whence they were being infringed upon in numerous cases. Furthermore, Soviet-Chinese support for most of these groups were either due to the proletarian solidarity that the manifesto speaks of, or concerning their stances against imperialist regimes or right-wing regimes, or to counter-measure against our Western governments' imposing of such regimes into place.
In terms of the regimes our Western governments brought to power, rarely was it ever done by popular support or actual consent. Regimes such as Chiang Kai Shek's, the Shah Pahlavi's, Pinochet, Mobutu Sese Seko, amongst others were brought to power through military coups. Regimes such as those of Guatemala, El Salvador, amongst others in Central America that had right-wing deaths along with them to unleash havoc in these countries, were brought to power after conducting intensive psychological operations to convince into being an overthrow of the democratically elected governments there.
In Europe, the CIA was well known for its involvement in the 1948 Italian elections. These sources are out there, read them out, see for yourself Comrade ASB.
In other cases, contras (counter-revolutionaries) of the vilest most atrocious sorts such as those utilised in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola (UNITA by Jonas Savimbi), amongst dozens of other countries were also supported by our Western governments. Thence we have our regime puppets that were installed to power by corporations/conglomerates. The United Fruit Company has had a well known role in establishing numerous right-wing regimes in Latin America, plantations played a role in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy, whilst petrol companies in general from our Western countries installed the select few of nomadic tribes in power of the traditional Arabian homeland (All these royal families were pseudo-Islamic, Khawarjite type nomadic tribes that simply happened to be on petrol wealthy areas, thus being made into the rules of the Gulf/Arabian peninsular region).
In Palestine, it was pre-planned as well as organised that the Zionists seize control over the entire population there by whatever means.
Then in terms of "occupations", let me make some reasonable points. Reagan "opposed" the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia (which saved the Cambodian people from the genocidal Khmer Rouge, which to me seems more of an insane right-wing agrarian regime than a 'Communist' one), whilst he openly supported the Indonesian Soehartoist invasion in addition to occupation of East Timor where the Indonesian right-wing regime unleashed a genocidal occupation.
Now, for Afghanistan, the sole real direct Soviet invasion ever, there is controversies surrounding this too. This was where our Western governments, their regional Middle Eastern puppets (including Israel, the Turkish Deep State, the Pakistani Deep State, the Gulf petrol-monarchs, the Jordanian regime, the Egyptian Sadat regime, the Moroccan regime, the Apartheid government in South Africa. They all worked together to train al-Qaeda in addition to the ISI with SAVAK methodologies, as well as instruction manuals on conducting effective terror operations similar to the manuals given to the contras in Central America.
It is also said that the Carter, Zia, Brzezinski, Reagan, Kirkpatrick Doctrines in Afghanistan were being utilised to deliberately draw the Soviets into the war, whom at first were very much divided about entering Afghanistan to assist the PDPA to commence with. It can be argued that Soviets were not 100% at fault on this subject, however I will concede that both sides in this conflict were equally atrocious.
In terms of the 1950s under Nikita Khrushchev it can be similarly argued. Indeed, the reason the Soviets were very much antagonised was due to the CIA leaks of Nikita's Speech, for the purposes of fomenting what could be considered the first example of Gladio styled "Colour Revolutions", to destabilise the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe. This was clearly seen as an act of aggression, thus they reacted in the manner they saw fit. However there too I shall concede some military units involved in this took things out of context.
Now, as for whom is victim as far as the Soviets are concerned. I believe you have forgotten some parts of history conveniently. Did you know that our pre-NATO pre-neo colonialist, old-colonial era governments mobilised an "Allied Intervention" to prevent the USSR's formation, openly aided the Tsarists in their massacres against tens of millions of peasants/serfs, proletarians/workers, students, amongst others in the lower classes that sympathised with the Soviet resistance? Did you know that even there, were allegations of biochemical weapons utilisation by Tsarist led coalition? Did you furthermore know our old-colonial era regimes literally hired Poland-Lithuania, Georgia, in addition to the Baltic states to utilise them as a front to help the Tsarists? Did you furthermore know that mercenaries were recruited from these nations, as well as from Czechoslovakia too, in order to back their Tsarist regime ally?
Did you additionally know that at first the Bolsheviks did stand for the belief that the Russian Empire's territories initially should get their sovereignties, however they were forced to change this position because of the above reasons? Keeping these things in mind, as well as how our Western governments from then onwards never officially recognised the Soviet Union, whilst did something similar in China too (where their puppet mobster fascist-Capitalist corrupted Chiang Kai Shek regime allies were not only hoarding/leeching China's wealth into their pockets whilst also the foreign fiscal haven accounts of their private sector backers in the West, however also unleashed tens of millions of deaths within the lower classes in China in encirclement campaigns, the 1927 massacres, the White Terror, the Taiwanese ethnic cleansing project attempt, in addition to the scorched earth policies Chiang Kai Shek utilised repeatedly throughout the numerous conflicts he was part of; most notably the deliberate flooding of a Yangtse river are which killed 300 000 people there alone), do you not realise where their antagonism comes from to commence with?
I see Russia as well as China, despite their occasional errors, as the solutions to our world. Why? Because they have learned from their errors, have seen the effects of the far worse things our Western elite unleashed upon the world in neo-colonialism as well. We should also care to recognise that the Cold War was basically about Capitalist-Imperialists eliminating the Communist resistance by all means, whilst the new materialisation of today is to contain all other forms of resistance to this vile modernised imperialism that Capitalism has unleashed.
Now, for the so-called anti-Western sentiments you feel are predominant, I disagree. The world does not hate our peoples. They loathe our elites, as well as the fact of which no official apologising for past vile transgressions (whether old-colonialism or neo-colonialism alike) has ever been released. Per se, our most recent example where Hollande refused to make a formal appropriate complete apology to Algeria for the atrocities our country committed there (whether in the Algerian War of the 1950s-1962 or the DGSE arming genocidal Al-Qaeda death squads in Algeria to destabilise it during the 1990s).
To further make my point clear to you I shall present more evidence to what I mean. Syrians as well as Egyptians per example made it clear recently they do NOT despise our peoples, just our neo-imperialist elites:
Syrian Electronic Army statement:
Egyptian peoples' statement:
Thus, I believe I have shattered this false view of the non-Western world. They do not loathe us. They loathe the imperialist/neo-imperialist characteristics of our rulers. Please understand this, Alien Space Bats.
Shofercia wrote:Rio Cana wrote:Seems the ones really pushing for intervention in Syria are the Arabians.
Read this news from 16 hours ago - http://news.msn.com/world/arab-states-u ... government
We knew that Saudi Arabia is pushing for this from day one. It's their pet project.Thanatttynia wrote:
Putin would say that, though, wouldn't he?
Reminiscent of Nazi Germany's absolute denial of military defeats to its own people, only on a smaller scale.
Except I just quoted General Dempsey and General Richardson implying the same thing. But go ahead and make those faux comparison if it makes you feel better.
It should not be surprising. However since our sycophant Western elites are in bed with the Gulf regimes, the Zionist regime in Tel Aviv, amongst other regional puppets, they are bound to help with their projects, no matter how vile they are.
Danhanjeedh wrote:Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:
Explain to me how the US would go about convincing Pakistan to allow US troops to position themselves in Pakistani territory in order to surround the Taliban.
I meant that they should have surrounded the Taliban at the moment they invaded, at that time they could have gotten permission from Pakistan to get control over the Afghan mountains there. And otherwise they could have gone there from the beginning. Now they only moved the problem to another country.
The Taliban are the pet projects of our regional puppet allies. Our Western elites do not seem really bothered with the fullest extent of said project however. They used to openly collude in it.
/quote]
