The US bombs Syrian forces

[melanie]

The US bomb a Syrain army base, killing 68 and wounding 100's.
At best this is baffling, poor Intel otherwise an attack upon Syrian forces.
Either way it's obvious the US have either a very basic idea of what is actually happening on the ground in Syria or they don't care and disabling Syria is the intent.
Will Syria be another Libya??
Or Iraq
As the world awakes to American imperialism, a bit late to get to the program but the feelings remain the same.
Australians are a little stupid but we are starting to awake to this agenda.
Alike the world over.
This act of terrorism was NOT an accident and social media is alive with questions of intent.
No one is without accountability
And from everything I have seen, most notably Powell's address to the issue there remains some serious questions.
Deflection upon Russia is a notable tool but not an honest answer.

[Kurieuo]

Beat you to it: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 30&t=41293

But, did you hear the latest event?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/s ... 13025.html
https://www.rt.com/news/359990-russia-d ... po-strike/

[melanie]

Sorry K,
Didn't see your post
But aljazeera is Saudi based and RT Russian based makes it very hard to see the Forrest through the trees.
But Moscow had strongly discredited the attacks. Has have the international community.

[Kurieuo]

Doesn't all news make it hard to see the trees? Nonetheless, initially I thought it was Assad's response, but then, who knows, things are seriously messed up. Is Australia really starting to wake up? I don't even bother with Australian news any more so wouldn't know.

[melanie]

The best predictor of behaviour is past behaviour.
I also am very wary of so called 'news'.
In between the propaganda perhaps what is 'news'
I actually want to know Assad's response, he is still the head of that nation.
Regardless of whether we think him fit for the position, He remains the elected leader.
I know the US doesn't deem him fit.
But that could be seen as very 'fitting'. It wouldn't be the first time the US has demonised a leader for their own benefit.

[Byblos]

Pft imperialism shminperialism. First of all, Obama did not want to get involved in the Syrian conflict, to the point of issuing several ultimatums and a few red lines, all of which were ignored to the detriment of our standing in the region and globally. Then the Russians stepped in and of course they have their own ulterior motives and that is the preservation of their ally Assad (to whom the army is loyal). As soon as we agree to cooperate with the Russians, who have been at this for quite some time and know exactly where the Syrian army and rebel locations are, all of a sudden our airplanes mistook the army for rebels? I don't think so. I bet dollars to donuts this was due to deliberate misinformation by the Russians to embarrass Obama (and us in the process) yet again. But go prove it (much less publicize it).

And before anyone goes crying foul over the killing of Syrian soldiers, let me remind you again, those are troops very much loyal to Assad who has brutally and mercilessly killed his own people with all kinds of vile weapons including starvation.

I say get over it.

[Kurieuo]

Those rebel forces just happened to be an offshoot of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Should have made a few missiles hit them too, instead it seems Russia cleaned up our mess. I'm personally not phased about the Syrian soldiers, but there was an agreement in place (which the US doesn't want released).

If the US had their way, and gave the Syrian rebels weapons to topple Assad then things would be much the worse. As German intelligent reported, 95% of the Syrian rebels come from abroad and were likely members of Al-Qaeda and other extremists. Thankfully Russia did step in and get Obama to back down, things I expect would be much worse otherwise. ISIS might have owned Syria and had greater strength. But, than again, the Middle East would have been greatly more destabilised, which seems to be a "hidden" objective -- Iraq, then Libya, Syria, Turkey, Iran...

Whether it's due to Russia forcing the hand through the maneuvering, they're right in my opinion that stabilisation in Syria is the most important thing, as no one is winning. Then let the people decide, even deal with Assad after when he thinks everything is over. I doubt it'll be the end to the saga.

PS. It was coalition forces, so Aussies and Brits were involved too. Obama's embarrassment is also our own.

[melanie]

Assad killed his own civilians and apparently unleashed chemical weapons?? According to whom?.
Apart from allegations from the US I have seen no credible evidence to back this up.
Obama didn't want to get involved?.
He has systematically shown aggression and a mentality of war mongering in Syria. Whilst some media have been a little more honest in reporting.
Russia has tried relentlessly to form a coalition with the US to combat ISIS, but the US has taken a renegade attitude to combat a region they have no Intel on.
Every time Russia tried to combat ISIS and form a united front, the US declined. Russia had ground troupes on the forefront and all the US did was bombard the public with misinformation. Apparently Russia bombed hospitals without proof. Of any kind. Apprently they bombed civilians without Intel or any proof again.
The only nation that has bombed and killed civilians with absolute proof is the US.
They are trying to topple Assad for their own profit and have no interest in the Syrian people.
Is that any surprise when you look at what happened to Libya or Iraq.
The only saving grace is the rest of the world is waking up.

[melanie]

The US has no business poking it's nose into middle eastern affairs apart from its own profit.
Ohh and that's a few billion in oil and military arms.

[melanie]

The question remains who is the US to deliver several ultimations and some 'red lines'.
Paradigm shift;
Akin to who made 'you the world police'
I think a change is occurring in power and the last person to get the memo is the one holding the cards and thinking they have 'the power'.

When [poop] hits the fan

[Jac3510]

It is naive, in my opinion and assessment, to say that we ought not get involved. We can't not get involved. On the other hand, it's equally clear (from a distance--nothing is clear in the details, and despite the parentheses, that's an important point) that both sides of this conflict are evil. There is no "good" side to be supported. Assad is a brutal, mass-murdering dictator. And the rebels as brutal, mass-burdering Islamofacists.

For me, the question we have to ask is, who is it in our best interests to be in power? I don't give two hoots about arguments from imperialism on that point. We--the US--are the world police, and we may as well embrace it, and as Trump says, start charging the hell out of people for our protection. The world is interconnected, and if someone doesn't like that, they can go be isolationists while the rest of the world moves on without them (and while they, in the process, lose their seats at the table: to such people, I refer them to CS Lewis' powerful essay, "Why I Am Not A Pacifist"). For realists, my own view is that it is in the interests of the USA for Assad to be in power. We should be publicly on his side.

Having said that, I want to immediately take it away by acknowledging that in these types of cases, there is simply information that NO ONE on this board knows about. I don't care how strong anyone's opinions or how many articles they cite to prove their case. No one has sufficient information on this board to decide whether or not the current administration has done the right thing. Therefore, while I say it is clear that we should back Assad, I say that with the GIANT caveat that it is clear given the evidence to which we are privy. That evidence, however, is insufficient to say absolutely that we should back Assad. And while I don't trust Obama's judgment, and while I expect that were I privy to the information that he is I would back Assad, I don't know the specifics on this case and therefore cannot make such claims. I think, then, it is irresponsible to make such judgments. This is why we used to say, in America, that politics stops at the waters edge. These ought not be matters of political debate. It is imprudent, and all of our opinions amount to exactly nothing.

[Philip]

Assad is a brutal, mass-murdering dictator. And the rebels as brutal, mass-burdering Islamofacists.

Absolutely, both are true!

For me, the question we have to ask is, who is it in our best interests to be in power?

If Assad is removed (the only significant power, backed by Russia), then we immediately have a MUCH bigger mess, as the removal of dictators in Iraq and Libya have well demonstrated. If Assad is taken out, those nasty Islamic factions will then battle for the crumbs. Meanwhile, the civilians and children will be continuously caught between them. That's always gonna be the dilemma when the factions fighting a dictator are just a brutal, as so often there are NO good guys.

[Byblos]

Assad killed his own civilians and apparently unleashed chemical weapons?? According to whom?.
Apart from allegations from the US I have seen no credible evidence to back this up.
Obama didn't want to get involved?.
He has systematically shown aggression and a mentality of war mongering in Syria. Whilst some media have been a little more honest in reporting.
Russia has tried relentlessly to form a coalition with the US to combat ISIS, but the US has taken a renegade attitude to combat a region they have no Intel on.
Every time Russia tried to combat ISIS and form a united front, the US declined. Russia had ground troupes on the forefront and all the US did was bombard the public with misinformation. Apparently Russia bombed hospitals without proof. Of any kind. Apprently they bombed civilians without Intel or any proof again.
The only nation that has bombed and killed civilians with absolute proof is the US.
They are trying to topple Assad for their own profit and have no interest in the Syrian people.
Is that any surprise when you look at what happened to Libya or Iraq.
The only saving grace is the rest of the world is waking up.

With all due respect Melanie, you know not of what you speak. I'm not (just) some imperialist American. I was born in the Middle East. I grew up at Assad's doorstep. I've experienced first hand his atrocities and his father's before him. I've fought wars against his terrorist so-called soldiers long before the term war on terror was popularized. I don't care what the US motivation is behind insisting on his removal. Assad is the very definition of pure evil.

[melanie]

A cop out
There remains a responsibility to foreign policy, because....
To take the road of 'heh' who knows so therefore not my responsibility,. Is not taking into consideration the thousands that are greatly influenced from such a relaxed opinion. I dare say, the hundreds of thousands of Syrians that are being directly affected from your nations actions have a far more personal approach.
Whether it be Australia or the US that are dropping bombs and killing Syrian soldiers, there is a fall out that extends much further than a 'meh whatever' approach.
Very easy to place such as 'impossible to understand' whilst people are actually dying and losing their dads, brothers and sons.
To leave such under 'political debate' as happened with Vietnam, Iraq and Libya does nothing to take away from questionable policy leaving countless numbers dead.
If such interests were brought on your doorstep, and not so 'foreign' I think a different approach would be taken.

[melanie]

Assad killed his own civilians and apparently unleashed chemical weapons?? According to whom?.
Apart from allegations from the US I have seen no credible evidence to back this up.
Obama didn't want to get involved?.
He has systematically shown aggression and a mentality of war mongering in Syria. Whilst some media have been a little more honest in reporting.
Russia has tried relentlessly to form a coalition with the US to combat ISIS, but the US has taken a renegade attitude to combat a region they have no Intel on.
Every time Russia tried to combat ISIS and form a united front, the US declined. Russia had ground troupes on the forefront and all the US did was bombard the public with misinformation. Apparently Russia bombed hospitals without proof. Of any kind. Apprently they bombed civilians without Intel or any proof again.
The only nation that has bombed and killed civilians with absolute proof is the US.
They are trying to topple Assad for their own profit and have no interest in the Syrian people.
Is that any surprise when you look at what happened to Libya or Iraq.
The only saving grace is the rest of the world is waking up.

With all due respect Melanie, you know not of what you speak. I'm not (just) some imperialist American. I was born in the Middle East. I grew up at Assad's doorstep. I've experienced first hand his atrocities and his father's before him. I've fought wars against his terrorist so-called soldiers long before the term war on terror was popularized. I don't care what the US motivation is behind insisting on his removal. Assad is the very definition of pure evil.

As is Mugabe,
Omar al-Bashir
Kim Jong-Il
Than Shwe
King Abdullah
Jinping
Sayyid Ali Khamenei
Isayas Afewerki
And the list continues,....
Acting as world police is not the US' role.
This role is rought with personal gain and profit. Which is why one country in invaded whilst another is ignored.
The US intervention in foreign governments is purely based upon personal profit and NOT based upon the needs of the people.