[Super Cicero]

(Original post by Jakanory)
Attachment 161837

The Syrian Government is doing nothing which Britain did not do to Germany in WW2. In order to not be hypocritical as a nation on the whole, we must apply the same rules of engagement to Syria. Well the Syrian army is doing the same thing, they are focusing the attacks on the morale of ENEMY CIVIL POPULATION. The Syrian army is firstly making places physically uninhabitable and secondly making the enemy population conscious of constant personal danger.

The Syrian armies immediate aim is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) The fear of death.

You cannot change the rules of engagement to suit your personal agenda, if such rules of engagement are good enough for the British then such rules of engagement are also fine for Syria.

Please do not be hypocritical now, Syria is fighting a devious enemy and it has to employ the same tactics the British employed on Germany, afterall such tactics allowed the British to win and therefore Syria also wants to win against a devious terrorist opposition which again is supported by the west ...sound fmailiar.... yep just like the Mujahadeen aka Al Qaeda were not so long ago.

Sorry you are fooling no one this time, you can make your words as emotional as you wnat you poor ickly thing but no one will be fooled by the lies that the likes of you spill out, we have seen Iraq we have seen Afghanistan we have seen the devastation our so called 'boys' have brought upon these countries, if anything I willl be sending financial support to the Syrian regime so that they can strike down terrorists which are supported by our government.

Erm... what?

How is democratic Britain fighting against the evil tyranny Nazi Germany in anyway similar to a tyrannical Syrian dictatorial regime using sickening force against its own people, just because they're demanding democratic rights?

All these anti-interventionist people, most of whom worship Ron Paul, are in my opinion, blind to the truth. The truth is that intervention is needed to stop freedom from being extinguished. For example:

- Without foreign French intervention in the American war of Independence, the American colonists would have been crushed by the British and there would be no USA for Ron Paul to attempt (and fail) to become president of.

- Without foreign intervention against Germany and Japan in WW2, tens of millions more would have died.

- Without foreign intervention in the Korean War, South Korea would have been conquered by communist forces and today South Korea would not be one of the world's most prosperous and advanced countries, it would be a tyrannical hellhole like North Korea where everyone was starving.

- Without foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War, Gadaffi's forces would have slaughtered everyone in Benghazi and hundreds of thousands of people would have been killed.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

[Clessus]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
Erm... what?

How is democratic Britain fighting against the evil tyranny Nazi Germany in anyway similar to a tyrannical Syrian dictatorial regime using sickening force against its own people, just because they're demanding democratic rights?

All these anti-interventionist people, most of whom worship Ron Paul, are in my opinion, blind to the truth. The truth is that intervention is needed to stop freedom from being extinguished. For example:

- Without foreign French intervention in the American war of Independence, the American colonists would have been crushed by the British and there would be no USA for Ron Paul to attempt (and fail) to become president of.

- Without foreign intervention against Germany and Japan in WW2, tens of millions more would have died.

- Without foreign intervention in the Korean War, South Korea would have been conquered by communist forces and today South Korea would not be one of the world's most prosperous and advanced countries, it would be a tyrannical hellhole like North Korea where everyone was starving.

- Without foreign intervention in the Libyan Civil War, Gadaffi's forces would have slaughtered everyone in Benghazi and hundreds of thousands of people would have been killed.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Good post, the followers of Ron Paul and especially George Galloway sicken me.

While the Left correctly points out the hypocracy of the West in helping certain oppressed peoples and not helping others, some of its members fall into the trap of only supporting oppressed peoples who the West doesn't support, while not supporting oppressed peoples which the West also supports, which is in effect the same sort of hypocracy and oppertunism. An example of this is the reaction to the recent massacre in Syria, which has been fairly lukeworm among certain commenters, and there have even been attempts to deny the massacre or blame it on the rebels. However, if Israel or the USA committed such an action I daresay the reaction would be somewhat different. It really is a shame to see that when an anti-western regime is threatened, certain members of the Left become trusted allies of the conservative forces, and defenders of the status-quo.

And of course we have the boogey man of Islamic extremism being brought up both by right-wing racists and left-wing "anti-imperialists". Leaving aside the fact that Gadaffi and others was hardly secular themselves, and even if they were, it would only show that secular regimes can be just as nasty as theocratic ones, the arab dictatorships have always played on fears of "islamic extremism" to preserve their illegitimate rule. It is similar to how right-wing dictatorships in Central and South America played on fears of Communism to surpress popular movements and justifty their autocratic rule.

Certain people regret the fall of the Gaddafi regime and the possible fall of Assad's, in the belief that these acted as leviathans keeping lids on Islamic extremism. They fail to appreciate that these dictatorships, through preventing the emergence of healthy political pluralism and through opportunistic collaboration with Islamism, acted as the incubators of the very Islamist movements they claimed to keep in check. It is pluralism that is ultimately the cure for the evil represented by Islamism.

If the so-called "anti-interventionalist" crowd had its way (and the likes of Galloway have no problem with Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or Hungary or Czekeslovakia, it's only Western intervention he's against ), as well as the things you mention, in the last 20 years the following would be the case;

1. Kuwait would be part of a Greater Iraq.
2. Bosnia would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.
3. The Taliban would be in charge of Afghanistan.
4. Kosova would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.

We have already seen the effects of "anti-imperialism" in Sudan amongst other places.

The Arab Spring may end badly in some or all of the countries in question, but long live the brave Syrians, Yemenis, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Bahrainis and others who have redeemed the honour of the Arab world through their heroic struggle against tyranny.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Clessus)
Good post, the followers of Ron Paul and especially George Galloway sicken me.

While the Left correctly points out the hypocracy of the West in helping certain oppressed peoples and not helping others, some of its members fall into the trap of only supporting oppressed peoples who the West doesn't support, while not supporting oppressed peoples which the West also supports, which is in effect the same sort of hypocracy and oppertunism. An example of this is the reaction to the recent massacre in Syria, which has been fairly lukeworm among certain commenters, and there have even been attempts to deny the massacre or blame it on the rebels. However, if Israel or the USA committed such an action I daresay the reaction would be somewhat different. It really is a shame to see that when an anti-western regime is threatened, certain members of the Left become trusted allies of the conservative forces, and defenders of the status-quo.

And of course we have the boogey man of Islamic extremism being brought up both by right-wing racists and left-wing "anti-imperialists". Leaving aside the fact that Gadaffi and others was hardly secular themselves, and even if they were, it would only show that secular regimes can be just as nasty as theocratic ones, the arab dictatorships have always played on fears of "islamic extremism" to preserve their illegitimate rule. It is similar to how right-wing dictatorships in Central and South America played on fears of Communism to surpress popular movements and justifty their autocratic rule.

Certain people regret the fall of the Gaddafi regime and the possible fall of Assad's, in the belief that these acted as leviathans keeping lids on Islamic extremism. They fail to appreciate that these dictatorships, through preventing the emergence of healthy political pluralism and through opportunistic collaboration with Islamism, acted as the incubators of the very Islamist movements they claimed to keep in check. It is pluralism that is ultimately the cure for the evil represented by Islamism.

If the so-called "anti-interventionalist" crowd had its way (and the likes of Galloway have no problem with Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or Hungary or Czekeslovakia, it's only Western intervention he's against ), as well as the things you mention, in the last 20 years the following would be the case;

1. Kuwait would be part of a Greater Iraq.
2. Bosnia would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.
3. The Taliban would be in charge of Afghanistan.
4. Kosova would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.

We have already seen the effects of "anti-imperialism" in Sudan amongst other places.

The Arab Spring may end badly in some or all of the countries in question, but long live the brave Syrians, Yemenis, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Bahrainis and others who have redeemed the honour of the Arab world through their heroic struggle against tyranny.

The Taliban are going to reconquer Afghanistan shortly after the ISAF forces leave - the conflict will, in less than five years, have made zero progress for the average Afghan.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Stalin)
The Taliban are going to reconquer Afghanistan shortly after the ISAF forces leave - the conflict will, in less than five years, have made zero progress for the average Afghan.

You can't say that with absolute certainty, and even if that does happen, it is only because of backing by Pakistan.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Highlander03)
Arm the FSA. Don't interfere on the ground. That should be enough.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

And thats how the Taliban was made.

I'm seriously wary of Arming a bunch of guys (leaving aside the attrocities they commit against Shi'ites, Christians, Pro-government civilians, and even trying to lead a British reporter to their death) who shout Allahu Akbar every 4 seconds.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by Clessus)

If the so-called "anti-interventionalist" crowd had its way (and the likes of Galloway have no problem with Soviet intervention in Afghanistan or Hungary or Czekeslovakia, it's only Western intervention he's against ), as well as the things you mention, in the last 20 years the following would be the case;

1. Kuwait would be part of a Greater Iraq.
2. Bosnia would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.
3. The Taliban would be in charge of Afghanistan.
4. Kosova would be ethnically cleansed and annexed.

We have already seen the effects of "anti-imperialism" in Sudan amongst other places.

The Arab Spring may end badly in some or all of the countries in question, but long live the brave Syrians, Yemenis, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Bahrainis and others who have redeemed the honour of the Arab world through their heroic struggle against tyranny.

1) The Gulf War was taken at the request of Saudi Arabia. It had nothing to with Kuwait. If the Iraqi's had not moved to the border with Saudi Arabia then no war would have taken place.

2) The Serbs were not going to ethnically cleanse the entire of Bosnia. Don't make up absurd statements. The West refused to supply weapons to the Bosnians and then didn't do anything for years.

3) And....the Taliban will eventually come back to power again once the US leaves.

4) Kosovo was already part of Serbia. So it was already annexed. There is no evidence that it would be ethnically cleansed. The KLA and the Serb Militia's were fighting a civil war. What was the result of the Kosovo intervention? More people died after the intervention than before the intervention.

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by prog2djent)
And thats how the Taliban was made.

I'm seriously wary of Arming a bunch of guys (leaving aside the attrocities they commit against Shi'ites, Christians, Pro-government civilians, and even trying to lead a British reporter to their death) who shout Allahu Akbar every 4 seconds.

Right...but the Pakistani's armed the Taliban on purpose so they could take control of Afghanistan.

[Clessus]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
1) The Gulf War was taken at the request of Saudi Arabia. It had nothing to with Kuwait. If the Iraqi's had not moved to the border with Saudi Arabia then no war would have taken place.

What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that if we listened to the "anti-interventionalists", Kuwait would still be part of Iraq.

2) The Serbs were not going to ethnically cleanse the entire of Bosnia. Don't make up absurd statements.

What on earth are you talking about? Of course they were, it was a process which they had already begun.

The West refused to supply weapons to the Bosnians and then didn't do anything for years.

True, but when they they did eventually intervene in 1995 the Bosniaks and Croats were able to push the Serbs back and force them to the negotiating table.

Kosovo was already part of Serbia. So it was already annexed.

Yes, perhaps the term "annexed" was incorrect.

There is no evidence that it would be ethnically cleansed.

Not according to statistical analysis by American Association for the Advancement of Science, Human rights reports, and the ICTY.

Of course the Kosova Albanians were facing ethnic cleansing before the NATO intervention - you only have to look at what Milosevic did in Croatia and Bosnia to see what he had in store for the Albanians, and what he had indeed begun to do. I

What was the result of the Kosovo intervention? More people died after the intervention than before the intervention.

The claim that the NATO intervention increased the Kosova death-toll is only ever made by Western 'anti-imperialist' ideologues and their fellow travellers, never by the Albanian victims themselves.

I know that a lot of anti-American zealots try to claim that the ethnic cleansing in Kosova was a 'response' to the NATO intervention, but that kind of reasoning fails to explain the 100,000 deaths (ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, almost certainly more) in Bosnia and over 10,000 deaths in Croatia, occurring prior to any NATO intervention.

What you are saying is that if - instead of presenting an ultimatum to Belgrade at Rambouillet and then proceeding to bomb Serbia when Belgrade defied that ultimatum - the NATO powers had given Belgrade a free hand in Kosova, then Serbian repression in Kosova would simply have continued at what you consider to be an acceptable level. Of course, there is no way of proving one way or the other what would have happened in Kosova if NATO hadn’t gone to war in the spring of 1999, but given the catalogue of horrors in the former Yugoslavia that were demonstrably not ‘precipitated’ by Western military intervention, the ethnic-cleansing of 300,000 Kosovars, etc. – the evidence suggests that it would not have resembled Edward Said’s ‘Sunday school picnic’.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Clessus)
You can't say that with absolute certainty, and even if that does happen, it is only because of backing by Pakistan.

The adventure in Afghanistan has been a complete and utter failure; how you can suggest that it might not fail is, even two years before the planned withdrawal, absurd.

It is, alongside Somalia, South Sudan and Mali, one of the most backward countries in the world. 37% of the country are literate, 94% of the people in Kandahar Province had no idea what 9/11 was, and 92% of the people in the same province had no idea why there were foreign troops in their country. Combine this with the fact, and this is a certainty, that the Taliban and their associates will re-emerge from their hibernation in Pakistan come the withdrawal and walk across the border. But, fear not: I'm sure the Afghan National Army will stop them.

I suppose we shall just wait and see what awaits them when their counterparts begin infiltrating their ranks, which they're doing as we speak, begin suicide bombing barracks', which they're doing as we speak, and rally the sons of fallen Afghans who were killed by NATO, which - and you've guessed it - is also what the Taliban are doing as we speak.

NATO may be able to put a few dents in al Qaeda's ability to function, but it will not, and this is a certainty, be able to bring 'all that good stuff people enjoy in the Western world' to a country which hasn't changed since the Bronze Age.

[Clessus]

(Original post by Stalin)


The adventure in Afghanistan has been a complete and utter failure; how you can suggest that it might not fail is, even two years before the planned withdrawal, absurd.

I never said it wasn't, I merely said that you can't say with absolute certainty that the Taliban will take over after NATO leave, and that the main reason that the Taliban has survived as an organisation is with Pakistan's patronage.

EDIT: as for your statement,

but it will not, and this is a certainty, be able to bring 'all that good stuff people enjoy in the Western world' to a country which hasn't changed since the Bronze Age.

which is clearly a swipe at so-called "western imperialism", what is your opinion on your namesake, who far more blatently and aggressively brought 'the worker's paradise' to millions of people across Eastern Europe against their will?

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by Clessus)
What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that if we listened to the "anti-interventionalists", Kuwait would still be part of Iraq..

Because Kuwait has zero to do with the intervention in Iraq and even if it was, I don't see what difference it makes.

(Original post by Clessus)
What on earth are you talking about? Of course they were, it was a process which they had already begun.


True, but when they they did eventually intervene in 1995 the Bosniaks and Croats were able to push the Serbs back and force them to the negotiating table.

No. If the Serbs wanted to massacre all the Bosnians, then they would have walked into Sarajevo and murdered people from street to street.

Don't make up things that didn't happen. Ethnic cleansing was occuring. There was no attempt to cleanse the entire Bosnian population.

(Original post by Clessus)
Not according to statistical analysis by American Association for the Advancement of Science, Human rights reports, and the ICTY.

Of course the Kosova Albanians were facing ethnic cleansing before the NATO intervention - you only have to look at what Milosevic did in Croatia and Bosnia to see what he had in store for the Albanians, and what he had indeed begun to do. I

Ok. The Albanians and the Serbs were in Kosovo were facing ethnic cleansing because it was an ethnic conflict. Both the KLA and Serbs were committing war crimes.

(Original post by Clessus)
The claim that the NATO intervention increased the Kosova death-toll is only ever made by Western 'anti-imperialist' ideologues and their fellow travellers, never by the Albanian victims themselves.

Actually, that is fact. I suggest you read the death tolls prior to the NATO bombing began and then after it began.

IF NATO was serious about intervention, then it would have invaded Kosovo with a vast number of troops to prevent any more killing. Instead it allowed the killing to continue.

(Original post by Clessus)
I know that a lot of anti-American zealots try to claim that the ethnic cleansing in Kosova was a 'response' to the NATO intervention, but that kind of reasoning fails to explain the 100,000 deaths (ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, almost certainly more) in Bosnia and over 10,000 deaths in Croatia, occurring prior to any NATO intervention.

What you are saying is that if - instead of presenting an ultimatum to Belgrade at Rambouillet and then proceeding to bomb Serbia when Belgrade defied that ultimatum - the NATO powers had given Belgrade a free hand in Kosova, then Serbian repression in Kosova would simply have continued at what you consider to be an acceptable level. Of course, there is no way of proving one way or the other what would have happened in Kosova if NATO hadn’t gone to war in the spring of 1999, but given the catalogue of horrors in the former Yugoslavia that were demonstrably not ‘precipitated’ by Western military intervention the ethnic-cleansing of 300,000 Kosovars, etc. – the evidence suggests that it would not have resembled Edward Said’s (who I generally respect and admire btw, but disagreed with him over this) ‘Sunday school picnic’

.

No. That is not what I am saying. As I have already said, Rambouillet was not designed to stop the killing. It was designed to force the Serbians to submit either by force or through political means.

The Serbians agreed at Rambouillet that the Kosovars could have their own Parliament and said that UN troops could be stationed in Kosovo. They refused to allow NATO Troops to have full access to Serbia and to be immune from prosecution.

I don't care how many people you think would have died. The reality is that NATO intervention was a disaster that led to more people dying than necessary.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Clessus)
I never said it wasn't, I merely said that you can't say with absolute certainty that the Taliban will take over after NATO leave, and that the main reason that the Taliban has survived as an organisation is with Pakistan's patronage.

Here's some advice: don't be surprised when Afghanistan heats up in 2014 and Karzai is seen hanging from his government building, or better yet beheaded.

EDIT: as for your statement, which is clearly a swipe at so-called "western imperialism", what is your opinion on your namesake, who far more blatently and aggressively brought 'the worker's paradise' to millions of people across Eastern Europe against their will?

For the record: I'm not a Chomsky or Galloway groupie, but because I pointed out the many flaws in the exit strategy you're playing the 'western imperialism' card on me?



You chickenhawks are all the same.

[Clessus]

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Because Kuwait has zero to do with the intervention in Iraq and even if it was, I don't see what difference it makes.

I'm not talking about the Iraq War, i'm talking about the First Gulf War, which had everything to do with Kuwait.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
No. If the Serbs wanted to massacre all the Bosnians, then they would have walked into Sarajevo and murdered people from street to street.

They certainly tried, but couldn't because the Bosnains had an army as well which prevented them from doing so. They did murder people from street to street and drive the remainder out in any other region that they took.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
There was no attempt to cleanse the entire Bosnian population.

Obviously not, as the Serbs never controlled all of Bosnia (due to the heroic efforts of the Bosnian Army, and commanders such as Naser Oric), but they did cleanse every single region that they controlled.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Ok. The Albanians and the Serbs were in Kosovo were facing ethnic cleansing because it was an ethnic conflict. Both the KLA and Serbs were committing war crimes.

Erm...no. The overwhelming majority of war crimes committed in 1998-1999 were committed by the Serbs. This is not to mention the illegal and unconstitutional abrigation of Kosova's autonomy in 1989 by the Serbs and of the police repression for years afterwards. At least the Kosovars tried several years of peaceful struggle to achieve independence, in the face of Milosevic's violence and repression, before they resorted to armed struggle out of desperation. Where was the British left when Ibrahim Rugova was seeking solidarity for his people's non-violent independence movement ?

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Actually, that is fact. I suggest you read the death tolls prior to the NATO bombing began and then after it began.

I already know them, and I have already answered this point, but I will say again. What you are saying is that Western intervention "precipitated" Serbian atrocities, therefore the West is to blame.

From reading your posts, one would almost believe that the bloodshed in Kosova had been – in Edward Said’s words (a man who I normally respect, especially on the Israel/Palestine question)– a ‘Sunday school picnic’ prior to the NATO bombing. Yet this is what Human Rights Watch reported in January 1999, more than two months before the bombing began:

"The government forces intensified their offensive throughout July and August [1998], despite promises from Milosevic that it had stopped. By mid-August, the government had retaken much of the territory that had been held by the KLA, including their stronghold of Malisevo. Unable to protect the civilian population, the KLA retreated into Drenica and some pockets in the West.

Some of the worst atrocities to date occurred in late September, as the government’s offensive was coming to an end. On September 26, eighteen members of an extended family, mostly women, children, and elderly, were killed near the village of Donje Obrinje by men believed to be with the Serbian special police. Many of the victims had been shot in the head and showed signs of bodily mutilation. On the same day, thirteen ethnic Albanian men were executed in the nearby village of Golubovac by government forces. One man survived and was subsequently taken out of the country by the international agencies in Kosovo.

The government offensive was an apparent attempt to crush civilian support for the rebels. Government forces attacked civilians, systematically destroyed towns, and forced thousands of people to flee their homes. One attack in August near Senik killed seventeen civilians who were hiding in the woods. The police were seen looting homes, destroying already abandoned villages, burning crops, and killing farm animals.

The majority of those killed and injured were civilians. At least 300,000 people were displaced, many of them women and children now living without shelter in the mountains and woods. In October, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) identified an estimated 35,000 of the displaced as particularly at risk of exposure to the elements. Most were too afraid to return to their homes due to the continued police presence."

Genocides are invariably ‘precipitated’ by something or other. The Armenian Genocide was ‘precipitated’ by the outbreak of World War I and Tsarist Russia’s military advance into Anatolia, as well as aggression against, and ethnic cleansing of, Muslims in the Balkans and Causacus in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, culminating in the 1912-1913 Balkan wars. The Rwandan Genocide was ‘precipitated’ by the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s offensive against the Rwandan Army, the Arusha Accords and by the shooting down of the plane carrying Rwanda’s President Juvenal Habyarimana. Of course, it is entirely legitimate for historians to interpret instances of genocide as having been ‘precipitated’ by something or other, but anyone who uses such explanations to shift the responsibility away from the perpetrators – whether Ottoman, Hutu, German, Serbian or other – is simply an apologist or a denier.

On 30 January 1939, Adolf Hitler gave a speech to the Reichstag in which he stated: ‘If the world of international financial Jewry, both in and outside of Europe, should succeed in plunging the nations into another world war, the result will not be the Bolshevisation of the world and thus a victory for Judaism. The result will be the extermination of the Jewish race in Europe.’

Hitler therefore made it explicit that the outbreak of a world war would result in the extermination of the Jews in Europe. Indeed, the outbreak and course of World War II ‘precipitated’ the Holocaust. Britain and France, when they declared war on Germany in September 1939, were by your logic responsible for the Holocaust.

Belgrade was aware that rejecting the Rambouillet Accords would precipitate Serbia being bombed by NATO, but rejected them nevertheless. By your’s own logic, therefore, Serbia’s own actions precipitated the NATO bombings, and were consequently responsible for those bombings. Since, according to you, the bombings led to the atrocities, that means that Serbia was responsible for the atrocities after all.

What you would like us to believe, is that if a US or NATO action produced a predictable Serbian response, then the response was the fault of the US/NATO. But if, on the other hand, a Serbian action produced a predictable US/NATO response, then the response was still the fault of the US/NATO. This is self-evidently a case of double standards.

Let there be no mistake about this: atrocities, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the responsibility of those who commit them. Whatever ‘precipitates’ them, they are the fault of their perpetrators.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
IF NATO was serious about intervention, then it would have invaded Kosovo with a vast number of troops to prevent any more killing. Instead it allowed the killing to continue.

It was planning to, but Serbia withdrew before it could.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
No. That is not what I am saying. As I have already said, Rambouillet was not designed to stop the killing. It was designed to force the Serbians to submit either by force or through political means.

Yes, which would have stopped the killings.

(Original post by DorianGrayism)
The Serbians agreed at Rambouillet that the Kosovars could have their own Parliament and said that UN troops could be stationed in Kosovo. They refused to allow NATO Troops to have full access to Serbia and to be immune from prosecution.

The Serbs wanted the clock to go back to 1974, which was hardly going to happen, given the recent events. Besides, The Dayton Accord of 1995 compromised the sovereignty of the Bosnian state far more than the Rambouillet treaty of 1999 threatened the sovereignty of the Yugoslav state: it abolished the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and recognised Radovan Karadzic’s disgusting ‘Republika Srpska’, with rights far greater than those ever offered to the Kosova Albanians.

(Original post by Stalin)
Here's some advice: don't be surprised when Afghanistan heats up in 2014 and Karzai is seen hanging from his government building, or better yet beheaded.

Very well, we'll see what happens

(Original post by Stalin)
For the record: I'm not a Chomsky or Galloway groupie, but because I pointed out the many flaws in the exit strategy you're playing the 'western imperialism' card on me?



You chickenhawks are all the same.

Apologies if I was mistaken, I thought you were an admirer of Stalin, given the fact your username is Stalin and you have a picture of him, apologies if I was mistaken.

[zedeneye1]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I enjoy this channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/SyrianGirlpartisan (watch as many videos as you can)

and this from my good friend of the Syrianatheist network on Facebook



The iranianatheist on FB is another good source of information, maybe if actually talk to these people you will understand that what the western media paints as "government shelling" killing civilians, is nothing more than violent sunni groups who kill a variety of non-sunni's the day before UN observers come in.

So lets look at Libya, since Gaddaffi has falled, has that situation improved? That war was no where near as bad as the Syrian one, the latter, in my opinion, is now a religious war, and sectarian. Assad was wrong to quash the protests, but the actions of the rebels are MUCH worse than whatever the syrian govt has been accused of by Sunni propoganda and gullable western sources. If Assad falls the country will just be a sectarian hell hole. Well, most of the Christians have been killed and forced out anyway, so there isn't too much left to kill for these Salafist thugs.

I can't wait for the wikileaks files to come flooding in, after all, Assange has claimed it will be a huge embarassment for the FSA.

This article is fantastic, http://wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/pers-m31.shtml

You can find many, MANY voices of Sryina civilians and their support for reform, you just have to look, like I did. Instead of readily eating up the absolute crap every major western news source vomits out.

The public aren're really taking it though, its the centre left that are calling for "humanitarian intervention". I think 64% of American are opposed to intervention, and 66% are against arming rebels, and in the UK, it is in the region of 80%.

I know which side I'm on for the simple face that the rebels are supported and are being armed by Israel (indirectly) and Nato.

there's a few problems..

no info is reliable...

how are you sure that it was false flag attack?

also, the shias are in power in syria...the government is shia. whereas the majority in country is sunni(60% sunni, 40% shia).

that is why iran supports syrian government, but most of other muslim countries are a bit silent on this, or agree with the highest bidder(corrupt governments).

the arab countries would probably want a sunni government in syria, thats why they wont mind much if foreign forces attack and place a pro sunni government. While iran wants shia government in power.

And that is the actual problem there. Its not government vs people. Its sunnis vs shias. Those who support assad's regime in syria are shia. Those opposing are sunnis. And that is what the conflict is all about.
Go ask a few syrians if there are around you. First ask them about their political views and then at the end ask them if they are sunni or shia. I am sure you can verify what I have said...

[zedeneye1]

(Original post by Clessus)
You can't say that with absolute certainty, and even if that does happen, it is only because of backing by Pakistan.

Don't take the thread in a different direction...

It is syria being discussed here...

And how is killing a taliban, progress?

Pakistan does not back taliban officially...But Pakistani people would naturally support Afghan Taliban.
Pakistan's intelligence also supports Taliban. And for a good reason. Taliban was a pro Pakistan government and Pakistani intelligence had friendly relations with taliban in the 90s.

USA should have moved out of afghanistan a long time ago...The afghan war was a failure and a pointless war anyways...

a 9/11 like attack can still be carried out again without any help from afghan taliban or anyone in the world....A muslim american can carry out similar attacks all on his own.
To stop such attacks, USA should focus on domestic security...maybe go door to door and interview people and see who qualify as terrorists....I'm sure that would have cost less than the wars...And would have been far more effective....but maybe not profitable for the defense contractors...

[DorianGrayism]

(Original post by Clessus)
I'm not talking about the Iraq War, i'm talking about the First Gulf War, which had everything to do with Kuwait.

Yes. The First Iraq War was conducted because Saddam decided to move his troops to the border with Saudi Arabia where large Oil Fields were. Therefore, at the request of the Saudi Arabian Government, the US and Co was asked to intervene.

(Original post by Clessus)
They certainly tried, but couldn't because the Bosnains had an army as well which prevented them from doing so. They did murder people from street to street and drive the remainder out in any other region that they took.

Obviously not, as the Serbs never controlled all of Bosnia (due to the heroic efforts of the Bosnian Army, and commanders such as Naser Oric), but they did cleanse every single region that they controlled.

Erm...no. The overwhelming majority of war crimes committed in 1998-1999 were committed by the Serbs. This is not to mention the illegal and unconstitutional abrigation of Kosova's autonomy in 1989 by the Serbs and of the police repression for years afterwards. At least the Kosovars tried several years of peaceful struggle to achieve independence, in the face of Milosevic's violence and repression, before they resorted to armed struggle out of desperation. Where was the British left when Ibrahim Rugova was seeking solidarity for his people's non-violent independence movement ?

The "Bosnian" army in Sarajevo consisted of Civilians with limited ammunition and weaponry. If the Serbians wanted they could have massacred everyone.

Well, if the Serbs never controlled all Serbia, then they cannot ethnically cleanse the entire of Bosnia as you originally claimed.

The KLA were massacring Serbs and committing ethnic cleansing in the region for years prior to 1998. They are to blame for the situation like the Serbian Militia.

(Original post by Clessus)
I already know them, and I have already answered this point, but I will say again. What you are saying is that Western intervention "precipitated" Serbian atrocities, therefore the West is to blame.

From reading your posts, one would almost believe that the bloodshed in Kosova had been – in Edward Said’s words (a man who I normally respect, especially on the Israel/Palestine question)– a ‘Sunday school picnic’ p...................perpetrators .

No. I didn't say that because I don't know what "precipated" what. That is your assumption. The Fact is that more civlians died after the humanitarian intervention began than before it started.

Stop copying and pasting from irrelevant blogs. If you don't know the subject matter then don't reply.

(Original post by Clessus)
It was planning to, but Serbia withdrew before it could.



Yes, which would have stopped the killings.

No. I am talking about before the bombing campaign started. The Serbians were still in Kosovo.

and no...it didn't stop the killings because the Serbians refused to allow NATO troops to run roughshod over their sovereignty. If NATO was serious about saving lives it would have moved troops into Kosovo straight away rather than bombing Serbia into submission.

[Clessus]

(Original post by zedeneye1)
Don't take the thread in a different direction...

It is syria being discussed here...

Agreed, and this is the last post I will make off topic. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, either message me or post on this thread.

Pakistan's intelligence also supports Taliban. And for a good reason. Taliban was a pro Pakistan government and Pakistani intelligence had friendly relations with taliban in the 90s.

True, many people forget Pakistan's attempts to dominate Afghanistan.

Yes. The First Iraq War was conducted because Saddam decided to move his troops to the border with Saudi Arabia where large Oil Fields were. Therefore, at the request of the Saudi Arabian Government, the US and Co was asked to intervene.

Yes, and my point remains that if the Gallowayites had been listened to, Iraq would still be in charge of Kuwait.

The "Bosnian" army in Sarajevo consisted of Civilians with limited ammunition and weaponry. If the Serbians wanted they could have massacred everyone.

No, the Bosnian army was weak and poorly armed, but it was not defenceless. Bosnia know that war was likely, considering events in Croatia, and had been preparing for several months. and it was able to engage in some successful attacks against the JNA in the early stages of the war. The Bosnian army had access to some of the stockpiles of the old Federal Army, and the Serbs also had to both fight the Croats, which hindered their ability to advance, and act under the watchful eyes of the world media and the UN (not that that stopped them much). It should also be remembered that America did its best to ignore the criminal arms embargo levelled against them, which helped give them a fighting chance. The Serbs were not invincible, and suffered from manpower shortages. (As well as the simple fact that defending is much easier than attacking)

Well, if the Serbs never controlled all Serbia, then they cannot ethnically cleanse the entire of Bosnia as you originally claimed.

The intentions of the Serbs (and the Croats, as is often forgotten) were painfully obvious, and the only reason they were unable to gain control of all of Bosnia was due to foreign intervention.

The KLA were massacring Serbs and committing ethnic cleansing in the region for years prior to 1998. They are to blame for the situation like the Serbian Militia.

Oh please, the crimes of the KLA (just like the crimes of the FSA), were nothing in comparison to the actions of the Milosevic regime. To bleat santimoniously about the KLA (I wonder how long before the old allegations of "organ trafficking" get brought up), is to ignore the illegal and unconstitutional abrigation of Kosova's autonomy in 1989, the years of police terror and the crushing of peaceful protests in the years preceeding the 1998-1999 war.

That is without mentioning the crimes which took place in 1912-1941, and between 1945 and 1974.

In the view of left-wing defenders of Milosevic, when a US client like Turkey, Indonesia or Israel massacres innocent civilians it is wholly to blame; when a ‘socialist’ regime does so it is the victims who are primarily to blame.

No. I didn't say that because I don't know what "precipated" what. That is your assumption. The Fact is that more civlians died after the humanitarian intervention began than before it started.

What you're saying is (or at the least, strongly implying), is that the NATO bombing made the situation worse, and therefore NATO is at fault for the deaths which occured. I've said how such an argument is bull****. Was the NATO campaign a success? Ask the people there, they will tell you. (Or, the fact that there is a statue of Clinton, and plans for a statue of Blair will give you a fairly strong idea of what the answer will be).

It needs to be explained why Serbian military intervention in Kosova (which was not simply part of Serbia), Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia is less objectionable to you than American military intervention, even when it was incomparably more bloody.

No. I am talking about before the bombing campaign started. The Serbians were still in Kosovo.

Imagine the bleating of the so-called "anti-war" crowd had we have committed ground troops to Kosova. Can you imagine what they would say if we committed ground troops in Syria? Besides, it was done do minimise NATO casualties (many don't care what happens, as long as "our boys" aren't being killed, such was the case in the First Gulf War), hardly a noble reason, but understandable, seeing as it was believed that air strikes would force the Serbs to surrender and no-one wants soldiers to die unnecessarily.

.it didn't stop the killings because the Serbians refused to allow NATO troops to run roughshod over their sovereignty.

Oh yeah, becuase Serbia hadn't ran roughshod over the sovereignty of its neighbours....oh wait nvm it did. As said before, Serbia violated Bosnia's sovereignty far more than NATO did with Serbia. Besides, Serbia knew that it would not resist NATO bombing for long (as it saw in Bosnia), and that rejecting the Rambouillet Accords would result in said bombing, but it rejected them anyway.

[zedeneye1]

(Original post by Clessus)
True, many people forget Pakistan's attempts to dominate Afghanistan.

Pakistan is not trying to dominate Afghanistan, nor is Afghanistan trying to dominate Pakistan.

N.W.F.P province (now Khyber Pakhtunkha) is majority pakhtun tribe which is also majority in Afghanistan. so naturally they tend to be friends and help each other out.
A part of Pakistan close to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border called waziristan has people who support the same tribe. This is where Taliban gets some support from.

I don't really see what Taliban are doing wrong. they are simply defending their government which ruled Afghanistan during the nineties...

[Clessus]

(Original post by zedeneye1)
Pakistan is not trying to dominate Afghanistan, nor is Afghanistan trying to dominate Pakistan.

N.W.F.P province (now Khyber Pakhtunkha) is majority pakhtun tribe which is also majority in Afghanistan. so naturally they tend to be friends and help each other out.
A part of Pakistan close to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border called waziristan has people who support the same tribe. This is where Taliban gets some support from.

I don't really see what Taliban are doing wrong. they are simply defending their government which ruled Afghanistan during the nineties...

Pakistan has been interfering in Afghan politics for decades, mainly through the Taliban. There has been serious talk of Pakistan annexing parts of Afghanistan. Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

Not withstanding Taliban atrocities both while in power, and during their insurgency, they never ruled all of Afghanistan in the first place, and have never been recognised as the legitimate government of the country. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE ever recognised the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by zedeneye1)
there's a few problems..


And that is the actual problem there. Its not government vs people. Its sunnis vs shias. Those who support assad's regime in syria are shia. Those opposing are sunnis. And that is what the conflict is all about.
Go ask a few syrians if there are around you. First ask them about their political views and then at the end ask them if they are sunni or shia. I am sure you can verify what I have said...

I argued this earlier, that is, at heart, now a religious war. Some fool tried to tell me it wasn't, but it is. This war is the US/Saudi/Israel (who I see as one entity) allied with Sunni Arabs vs The Aliwates and their Shia Allies in Iran, Lebannon, and also the Christian community.