Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Syrian crisis - what should be done?  (Read 17510 times)
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #160 on: September 06, 2013, 07:58:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Anything Obama, the senate, congress or the military says about Syria should take a back seat to everyday, flagrant use of force in violation of the law by a large percentage of the police here......

Spotted by the side of the road in Scottsdale, AZ....and posted here especially for Rocco Penny.....who has me blocked.   Wink
I'm going to assume there should be a question mark (not a period) after 'POLICE'. It's certainly implied.

Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



WWW
« Reply #161 on: September 06, 2013, 08:38:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly! If only we could find someone with impecable moral authority and unquestionable track record to present the irrefutable evidence. Where is Colin Powell when you need him?

There are 3 questions here:
- Were chemical weapons used? It seems reasonnable to think there was a usage of chemical weapons,
- Who was responsible for their usage? It seems very unlikely that the Syrian gov did it because it would mean that they are suicidal,
- Does it justify strikes that are certain to kill many innocent people whose surviving relatives will be manipulated into thinking that the US did it because it is controlled by Israel? I would say absolutely not considering the geopolitical impacts.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 06, 2013, 08:40:10 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #162 on: September 06, 2013, 09:00:29 PM »
ReplyReply

- Who was responsible for their usage? It seems very unlikely that the Syrian gov did it because it would mean that they are suicidal....

Suicidal?  So far, not so much.

All this red line/crimes against humanity business over chem as the tipping point is hot air. When Iraq was at war with Iran, the Iraqis used chem on Iranian tank formations, I don't recall any particular outrage.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



WWW
« Reply #163 on: September 07, 2013, 05:33:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Suicidal?  So far, not so much.

All this red line/crimes against humanity business over chem as the tipping point is hot air.

Obama made a very clear public statment about the consequences of crossing this line.

So going against this statment, without any value whatsoever for the Syrian gov, in a context where they have clear ennemies both in Israel and Saudi Arabia... doing this is either showing a degree of stupidity that is not realistic for a head of state... or a form of suicide... which again is not credible. Not after the US did what they did in Irak.

As always, the odds are much higher that those benefiting from a possible retaliation from the US made sure the chem weapon usage would happen.

We have to stop with the childish views of the world. There is simply not way the Syrian gov ordered the usage of chem weapons.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 05:35:38 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Gulag
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184


« Reply #164 on: September 07, 2013, 10:14:21 PM »
ReplyReply

At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?

With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?

It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?

Can we stop what's happening?

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”

― Nietzsche
Logged

“For art to be art it has to cure.”  - Alejandro Jodorowsky
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #165 on: September 07, 2013, 11:18:52 PM »
ReplyReply


As always, the odds are much higher that those benefiting from a possible retaliation from the US made sure the chem weapon usage would happen.

We have to stop with the childish views of the world. There is simply not way the Syrian gov ordered the usage of chem weapons.

Cheers,
Bernard


I understand what you're saying, Bernard. Cui Bono, etc.  I get it.

However, let's examine how Assad might benefit (in fact is benefitting, at least so far) from the events as they have unfolded.

Russia has reiterated its staunch support for Assad, effectively lining up with Syria against the US. It has in fact taken a stronger position than it had taken up to this point, and these events precipitated this stance. Unprecedented weapons shipments are undoubtedly in transit from Moscow as we speak.

Assad now has clarified for the populous the potential consequences of sympathy and support for the rebels, with no backlash, at least so far.

He has established himself across broad swaths of the relevant cultural milieu as the so called 'strong horse', an accomplishment Obama cannot fathom.

Assad has played chicken with the US and is...so far...the clear winner, especially among his key constituencies, which don't include Americans or Europeans.

Assad made a judgement about the character and constitution of Obama, and the mood of the American body politic and the West in general at the present time, and I'm sure he's feeling vindicated.

Who might benefit from US involvement/retaliation? That's purely academic at this point, because there has been no retaliation, and whatever might happen, Assad knows for damn sure it will not be anything like what happened to Saddam. Obama (and the silence of our allies) has made that quite clear.

Who benefits if the US sends a couple dozen missiles into Syria? Assad...that's who.
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 874


WWW
« Reply #166 on: September 08, 2013, 01:39:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand what you're saying, Bernard. Cui Bono, etc.  I get it.

However, let's examine how Assad might benefit (in fact is benefitting, at least so far) from the events as they have unfolded.

Russia has reiterated its staunch support for Assad, effectively lining up with Syria against the US. It has in fact taken a stronger position than it had taken up to this point, and these events precipitated this stance. Unprecedented weapons shipments are undoubtedly in transit from Moscow as we speak.

Assad now has clarified for the populous the potential consequences of sympathy and support for the rebels, with no backlash, at least so far.

He has established himself across broad swaths of the relevant cultural milieu as the so called 'strong horse', an accomplishment Obama cannot fathom.

Assad has played chicken with the US and is...so far...the clear winner, especially among his key constituencies, which don't include Americans or Europeans.

Assad made a judgement about the character and constitution of Obama, and the mood of the American body politic and the West in general at the present time, and I'm sure he's feeling vindicated.

Who might benefit from US involvement/retaliation? That's purely academic at this point, because there has been no retaliation, and whatever might happen, Assad knows for damn sure it will not be anything like what happened to Saddam. Obama (and the silence of our allies) has made that quite clear.

Who benefits if the US sends a couple dozen missiles into Syria? Assad...that's who.

A totally plausible scenario, except that neither Bashar al-Assad nor his father have ever shown that degree of subtlety. (As far as I know; not saying you are mistaken). What is more likely is that outsiders ordered the attack, and now Bashar al-Assad will make the best of a bad situation and follow the last part of your outline.
Logged

Rocco Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 483



« Reply #167 on: September 08, 2013, 05:54:09 AM »
ReplyReply

why are we still talking about joining Syria's civil war?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/national-security-versus-food-insecurity-one-in-seven-hungry-in-america-as-obama-prepares-for-syrian-war/5348690?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=national-security-versus-food-insecurity-one-in-seven-hungry-in-america-as-obama-prepares-for-syrian-war
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772



WWW
« Reply #168 on: September 08, 2013, 08:48:20 AM »
ReplyReply

why are we still talking about joining Syria's civil war?

Because of the War Pigs! They're just like witches at black masses right now.

And do you really think the Nobel Peace Prize was because of Obama's track record? What we have is the perfect example of a narcissist incapable of seeing what he's standing in.
Logged

~ CB
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



WWW
« Reply #169 on: September 08, 2013, 06:05:54 PM »
ReplyReply

The German secret services just confirmed that the chem attacks had not been ordered by the Syrian gov.

My proposal: we keep the Tomahawks ready, find out who plotted the attacks and fire at those guys.

Odds are they will fly to Ryad or Jerusalem.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
degrub
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 273


« Reply #170 on: September 08, 2013, 09:04:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

What i can find online about the BND briefing is along the lines that Assad did not personally order the use of chemical weapons. Not that the regime did not.

Agree, wait and see and get the right target.

Frank
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #171 on: September 09, 2013, 02:38:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The German secret services just confirmed that the chem attacks had not been ordered by the Syrian gov.

My proposal: we keep the Tomahawks ready, find out who plotted the attacks and fire at those guys.

Odds are they will fly to Ryad or Jerusalem.

Cheers,
Bernard



When I read you first sentence I though you were cracking an old WW2 joke.

I'm also rather impressed with your own secret report and tale of two cities. Nothing like a bit of hard information in these troubled times!

;-)
 
Rob C
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7781



WWW
« Reply #172 on: September 09, 2013, 03:23:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm also rather impressed with your own secret report and tale of two cities. Nothing like a bit of hard information in these troubled times!

I have never written they were "hard information".

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



WWW
« Reply #173 on: September 09, 2013, 07:02:17 AM »
ReplyReply

With all the ease of information we have at our disposal we have no credible information.
I have learned to trust no one. All parties have much to gain or escape from their propaganda.

Peter
 
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8855


« Reply #174 on: September 09, 2013, 09:23:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,
The impression I'm getting  from news reports on this, is that it seems clear,according to the intercepted messages by the Germans, that Assad himself did not order the chemical attacks, but other members of his miltary force may have done so. It's not clear or certain that these attacks were perpetrated by either the rebels or outside forces.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5556



WWW
« Reply #175 on: September 09, 2013, 05:24:34 PM »
ReplyReply

To join Rocco's line of thinking: while our government is busy protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments, how about protecting its own citizens from evil government:

"Man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were LEFT WITH NOTHING."

Ironically, the story in Washington Post starts with a retired Marine sergeant, one of those who bear the brunt of protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #176 on: September 09, 2013, 08:11:13 PM »
ReplyReply

To join Rocco's line of thinking emotion: while our government is busy protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments, how about protecting its own citizens from evil government:

"Man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were LEFT WITH NOTHING."

Ironically, the story in Washington Post starts with a retired Marine sergeant, one of those who bear the brunt of protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments.

Hey, I'm no fan of government. In fact, I want less of it at every turn.

But this kind of sob story is no reason to trash the government. You picked a bad example, Slobo.  A $134 tax deficiency is just like a larger one, retired Marine or otherwise. If the tax delinquent is a sympathetic character, (handicapped, teacher, recovering crack whore with a good heart, whatever) we should then selectively enforce the statutes? Please....

A $134 deficiency is easy to remedy, and all required notices were undoubtedly provided to the salt of the earth retired Marine, who very likely ignored them. If one dislikes these kinds of rules, one should work to change them. If you think only large tax deficiencies incurred by people who have bad personalities or unsympathetic life stories should be subject to collection, then propose it.

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5556



WWW
« Reply #177 on: September 09, 2013, 09:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, please Mezzo, you are jumping the gun with your preconceived ideas without even reading the article, and resorting to the cheapest trick in the book, straw-man argument. Nobody is suggesting to selectively enforce statutes for "sympathetic characters."

However, no, $134 tax deficiency is not "just like a larger one." Nor is $0.80 (yes, eighty cents) that triggered a foreclosure in another example. Law recognizes degrees in breaking it in many other cases. There is a different penalty for speeding more than 5 miles above speed limit and speeding 30 miles. In many cases, speeding not more than 5 miles would not even trigger penalty. If you steal something, there is scale of punishment depending on the amount. If you are found with drugs on you, there is a different treatment for different amounts.

There is a legal principle of extenuating circumstances (like dementia in the OP case). Then there is that legal principle that punishment should fit the crime. There is another legal principle that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If you do not think that taking away a home worth $200,000 to $300,000 dollars over a couple of hundred or even thousand dollars is not "cruel and unusual punishment," then YOU deserve a cruel and unusual punishment.

But lets for a second accept, for the sake of argument, that it is ok to sell a $200,000 home to collect $134 debt. Should not then the proceeds from the sale go to pay the debt, but the rest (the huge rest) go back to the original owner? In which case the offender would end up with a hassle and and a smaller home, but not homeless.

There was this case recently (and ongoing) where an active-duty soldier lost $300,000 home over $800 debt to a homeowner association, where the HOA sold it for $3,500 (yes, three thousand).

It is not about "sympathetic characters," it is about predatory collection methods and the governments that use them.

If you do not see a basic human injustice, the cruel and unusual punishment, in those cases, then we really have nothing to discuss.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #178 on: September 09, 2013, 10:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Not to mention this guy has a mental illness (dementia) which by definition causes confusion and the inability to take care of more complex things.  It progresses until they forget which end the boxers go on.

This isn't a 35 year old healthy person thumbing his nose at his taxes.  It's a 76 year old dementia struck disadvantaged minority who on average has barely there literacy skills, a not so deep understanding of the "system", probably can't afford glasses to read the damn notice because his inadequate military retirement (where he served at a time his race held back promotions and equal pay) is barely enough to keep him in Purina large bits..

Should I go on?  I'm laying it on thick, but all these things are there.  Before the "city" turns over $194 to a collection agency whose practices are well known, shouldn't they visit the individual and see what the problem is?  I mean shazam.. where's your community organizers when you need them?  Obviously not helping the disadvantaged.. instead they're out there running up deficits.. dammit Scotty I'm tired of all this.   We need more power and we need it now!
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #179 on: September 09, 2013, 11:17:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, please Mezzo, you are jumping the gun with your preconceived ideas without even reading the article, and resorting to the cheapest trick in the book, straw-man argument. Nobody is suggesting to selectively enforce statutes for "sympathetic characters."

However, no, $134 tax deficiency is not "just like a larger one." Nor is $0.80 (yes, eighty cents) that triggered a foreclosure in another example. Law recognizes degrees in breaking it in many other cases. There is a different penalty for speeding more than 5 miles above speed limit and speeding 30 miles. In many cases, speeding not more than 5 miles would not even trigger penalty. If you steal something, there is scale of punishment depending on the amount. If you are found with drugs on you, there is a different treatment for different amounts.

There is a legal principle of extenuating circumstances (like dementia in the OP case). Then there is that legal principle that punishment should fit the crime. There is another legal principle that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If you do not think that taking away a home worth $200,000 to $300,000 dollars over a couple of hundred or even thousand dollars is not "cruel and unusual punishment," then YOU deserve a cruel and unusual punishment.

But lets for a second accept, for the sake of argument, that it is ok to sell a $200,000 home to collect $134 debt. Should not then the proceeds from the sale go to pay the debt, but the rest (the huge rest) go back to the original owner? In which case the offender would end up with a hassle and and a smaller home, but not homeless.

There was this case recently (and ongoing) where an active-duty soldier lost $300,000 home over $800 debt to a homeowner association, where the HOA sold it for $3,500 (yes, three thousand).

It is not about "sympathetic characters," it is about predatory collection methods and the governments that use them.

If you do not see a basic human injustice, the cruel and unusual punishment, in those cases, then we really have nothing to discuss.

Sounds like you want to change these taxation and collections practices. Best wishes. In the meantime, they are either fair or unfair irrespective of the sob stories and special cases that make it into Mother Jones. Your outrage and righteous indignation seem to be kindled...to what end?
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad