Let's all invade Syria!

[IDB87]

Read this and then try to find the mentioned pattern with CSIS.

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Daimler
General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Siemens Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Raytheon Co.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Toyota

Snigger.

 

[anglolawyer]

On this page is the BBC film, which headlined on this evening's TV news. There is a shot of a helicopter and then something falling out of the sky. The something looks like it is falling straight down and it has a vapour trail. It looks like a flare or something like that. I know nothing about chemical munitions but wouldn't it be better if the thing fractured on impact with the ground and then released its gases? Why would the object be giving off a flare on the way down? It would be so easy to fake this footage.

 

[angrysoba]

On the list of state-run bank nations-I haven't verified that, just saw it around. Figured maybe someone would point me to a de-bunk if there is one. Angry: gave it a moment's thought, not sure I had the thought you thought I should. Any hints?

The North Korean economy is worthless! Less than worthless, in fact, so there is no need to assume that wars are driven by some need to bring North Korea and other countries into the global banking elite fold.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

The North Korean economy is worthless! Less than worthless, in fact, so there is no need to assume that wars are driven by some need to bring North Korea and other countries into the global banking elite fold.

Worthless.

 

[angrysoba]

Worthless.

I know there have been foreign ventures into the North Korean market but in many cases they have been closed down or North Korea never paid the bills.

Orascom is probably the most high-profile investor there who glass-cladded the Ryugong Hotel, I think.

But it is hardly a country worth invading to set up business there, seeing as the only people with money to pay the bills will be the government getting deposed.

 

[TravelingBiscuit]

I know there have been foreign ventures into the North Korean market but in many cases they have been closed down or North Korea never paid the bills.

Orascom is probably the most high-profile investor there who glass-cladded the Ryugong Hotel, I think.

But it is hardly a country worth invading to set up business there, seeing as the only people with money to pay the bills will be the government getting deposed.

Did you bother reading the article at all?

 

[anglolawyer]

Here we go, according to the BBC

President Obama made the decision after his administration concluded Syrian forces under Bashar al-Assad were using chemical weapons, a spokesman said.

Ben Rhodes did not give details about the military aid other than to say it would be "different in scope and scale to what we have provided before".

Russia said the US claims on Syria's chemical weapons use were unconvincing.

Never mind Syria's putative chemical weapons, reputed to have killed a dozen people, what about North Korea's actual nuclear bombs? Oh wait, they aren't a player in an oil rich region.

Does anyone really believe this BS anymore?

 

[The Don]

Here we go, according to the BBC


Never mind Syria's putative chemical weapons, reputed to have killed a dozen people, what about North Korea's actual nuclear bombs? Oh wait, they aren't a player in an oil rich region.

Does anyone really believe this BS anymore?

My view from the "how to stop the carnage in Syria" thread

So, because the US now has incontrovertible evidence that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people, the Obama administration are now prepared to offer increased support for the opposition to the Assad regime up to and including military assistance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289

I'm very uncomfortable about this development. Clearly I abhor the use of chemical weapons but I'm concerned about Western support because:

• The opposition to Assad is a very mixed bunch. The US could find themselves supporting some very unpleasant characters
• This will increase the motivation for Russia and Iran to up the ante and provide more support for the Assad regime, taking the whole war up a notch
• We have no clear idea what the post-civil war Syria will look like. IMO there's a very real risk it may be far worse than Syria under Assad
• This feels to me like an excuse to provide support to counteract Hezbollah which may then backfire if the use of chemical weapons is found to be false or exaggerated

Syria is a mess and as usual meddling of external powers on both sides seem to be making it messier. Even if US intervention is successful militarily it could still be devastatingly unsuccessful diplomatically.

 

[anglolawyer]

My view from the "how to stop the carnage in Syria" thread

I don't doubt those points are well made. I have a prior concern about not being lied to. I might support the interventionists if I knew the arguments but not if they consist merely of the fact that one side, according to questionable evidence, has deployed chemical weapons against the other.

 

[LSSBB]

I don't doubt those points are well made. I have a prior concern about not being lied to. I might support the interventionists if I knew the arguments but not if they consist merely of the fact that one side, according to questionable evidence, has deployed chemical weapons against the other.

What specifically is questionable about their evidence?

 

[The Don]

What specifically is questionable about their evidence?

I don't know what anglolawyer thinks is questionable but from my perspective:

• The timing is awfully convenient. The Syrian regime with support from Hezbollah has managed to make significant recent gains and we're not so far away from talks so increased support from the US would certainly bolster the anti-Assad forces' position
• Stories of both sides having used chemical weapons have been around for some time with various levels of certainty. The UK and France have been sure for some time but the US has taken longer to come to a conclusion. This could just be caution from the US but it could also be that it has taken a long time to be certain which could be interpreted as the evidence not being so overwhelmingly strong
• The Syrian conflict has been very confusing up until now with little certainty of which side has done what to whom
• There have been comparatively few victims which seems like an atypical use of chemical weapons - not that I'm an expert in such things. It could therefore be a generous definition of chemical weapons that has been applied
• The US intelligence services are reported as saying that they have "high confidence", they were also convinced about Iraqi WMD.

Of course all of the above has a distinct CT whiff about it so while the above crossed my mind I prefer to think that the evidence is indeed strong. Russia have said that the evidence is unconvincing but of course they would say that wouldn't they ?

 

[anglolawyer]

What specifically is questionable about their evidence?

The source is the same one that falsely claimed WMD in Iraq. Saying that, I haven't actually seen the evidence. Is it in the public domain? I did see a BBC report a couple of weeks ago that did is best but totally failed (IMO) to suggest the Syrian govt had used gas in an assault on a town.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't know what anglolawyer thinks is questionable but from my perspective:

• The timing is awfully convenient. The Syrian regime with support from Hezbollah has managed to make significant recent gains and we're not so far away from talks so increased support from the US would certainly bolster the anti-Assad forces' position
• Stories of both sides having used chemical weapons have been around for some time with various levels of certainty. The UK and France have been sure for some time but the US has taken longer to come to a conclusion. This could just be caution from the US but it could also be that it has taken a long time to be certain which could be interpreted as the evidence not being so overwhelmingly strong
• The Syrian conflict has been very confusing up until now with little certainty of which side has done what to whom
• There have been comparatively few victims which seems like an atypical use of chemical weapons - not that I'm an expert in such things. It could therefore be a generous definition of chemical weapons that has been applied
• The US intelligence services are reported as saying that they have "high confidence", they were also convinced about Iraqi WMD.

Of course all of the above has a distinct CT whiff about it so while the above crossed my mind I prefer to think that the evidence is indeed strong. Russia have said that the evidence is unconvincing but of course they would say that wouldn't they ?

Did the Russians perhaps also say no WMD in Iraq? Why does the US get held to any different standard than anyone else? They are governed by liars and have proved it in spades.

 

[LSSBB]

I don't know what anglolawyer thinks is questionable but from my perspective:

• The timing is awfully convenient. The Syrian regime with support from Hezbollah has managed to make significant recent gains and we're not so far away from talks so increased support from the US would certainly bolster the anti-Assad forces' position
• Stories of both sides having used chemical weapons have been around for some time with various levels of certainty. The UK and France have been sure for some time but the US has taken longer to come to a conclusion. This could just be caution from the US but it could also be that it has taken a long time to be certain which could be interpreted as the evidence not being so overwhelmingly strong
• The Syrian conflict has been very confusing up until now with little certainty of which side has done what to whom
• There have been comparatively few victims which seems like an atypical use of chemical weapons - not that I'm an expert in such things. It could therefore be a generous definition of chemical weapons that has been applied
• The US intelligence services are reported as saying that they have "high confidence", they were also convinced about Iraqi WMD.

Of course all of the above has a distinct CT whiff about it so while the above crossed my mind I prefer to think that the evidence is indeed strong. Russia have said that the evidence is unconvincing but of course they would say that wouldn't they ?

None of those points makes the evidence itself questionable. The only things I could think of which could lead one to reasonably question the data would be the provenance or chain of custody of the samples, or the capabilities of the labs doing the measurements. None of which we have enough information I am aware of which could be used to draw a conclusion.

 

[LSSBB]

Did the Russians perhaps also say no WMD in Iraq? Why does the US get held to any different standard than anyone else? They are governed by liars and have proved it in spades.

Ah yes, aren't all politicians liars? Can that be a reasonable basis to conclude that everything they report is a lie?

 

[MaGZ]

Here we go, according to the BBC


Never mind Syria's putative chemical weapons, reputed to have killed a dozen people, what about North Korea's actual nuclear bombs? Oh wait, they aren't a player in an oil rich region.

Does anyone really believe this BS anymore?

Your argument that the US wants to invade Syria for its oil is leftist nonsense.

 

[dudalb]

My main concern is Syria becoming a puppet state for Iran, which seems to be what will happen if Assad wins.

 

[anglolawyer]

Ah yes, aren't all politicians liars? Can that be a reasonable basis to conclude that everything they report is a lie?

Simplistic nonsense. We know the US (and others - including the UK) lied about WMD as a pretext for war in Iraq. We know the US did not go to war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We know the US holds international law in open contempt and we also know that no country in history has framed its foreign policy on any basis other than self interest.

Given all that, does it make sense to suppose the US has decided to arm the rebels because of concern about the use of chemical weapons? No.

Your argument that the US wants to invade Syria for its oil is leftist nonsense.

I have made no such argument.

My main concern is Syria becoming a puppet state for Iran, which seems to be what will happen if Assad wins.

What makes you think this? Assad is and has been in power for many years already. Has Syria been a puppet state of Iran during this period?

 

[LSSBB]

Simplistic nonsense. We know the US (and others - including the UK) lied about WMD as a pretext for war in Iraq. We know the US did not go to war in Iraq for humanitarian reasons. We know the US holds international law in open contempt and we also know that no country in history has framed its foreign policy on any basis other than self interest.

Given all that, does it make sense to suppose the US has decided to arm the rebels because of concern about the use of chemical weapons? No.

I have made no such argument.



What makes you think this? Assad is and has been in power for many years already. Has Syria been a puppet state of Iran during this period?

We know you are starting your response with several blanket statements.

Nonsense indeed.

 

[anglolawyer]

We know you are starting your response with several blanket statements.

Nonsense indeed.

Which of them do you disagree with?