So the Syrian Army are the good guys now?

[Procrastinator35]

Are you incapable of answering a simple question?

If it's loaded....Then almost always.

 

[Total Power]

If it's loaded....Then almost always.

So in a democracy you can only vote for 1 person? once again, there will be no reply.

 

[Northalives]

I've replied to Northalive's conspiracy theory in the other thread. Although I see he's added some stupid and offensive things about rebels being 'good guys' (according to who? the US does nothing about them getting killed, it's the chemical weapons they drew a line over) and generalisations (e.g. about the entire African continent... it's enough to make me think his account has been hijacked).

But for you, Nut, and johnnypanther, CatFan79, Sir James Sober and Total Power - just remember how ready you were to believe this, when the war you thought the US and Australia were so keen for doesn't happen. You have swallowed the Assad/Russia lines on the basis of this being a ruse for the US to go into another war. If you were paying attention you'd see that there is little indication of the US having an appetite to go beyond the token attack on that airbase. So IF this war doesn't happen - still allowing for you to think you're in the right here - IF it doesn't happen you will have to admit to yourselves you were sucked in by a conspiracy theory and hopefully be far less selectively gullible and cynical next time.

And WTF is the deal with people throwing in Afghanistan or the Gulf War as being wars on false pretexts? Are these people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and... what? That Saddam was tricked into going into Kuwait?? WMDs and Iraq was the illegal war and the worst 'Western' policy decision in my life-time. The rest are nothing like it. Plenty of reasons to be anti-War without believing lies or defending tyrants.

Don't call me a conspiracist and don't question my knowledge of what is going on in Africa.

Unlike some others, I don't see conspiracies around every corner nor do I have a paranoid delusion that everything is not what it seems.

I don't know when you were born so I don't know whether you grew up in the era where there was some semblance of investigative journalists and journalism and I don't know if you have any idea as to what the USA/CIA have been doing firstly in Latin and South America and then, post World War Two, in the rest of the world.

Please don't get healthy cynicism mixed up with conspiracy theory and please don't use the, "you're just a conspiracy theorist" to dismiss and disregard what sane and intelligent people say is, in all likelihood happening because some people understand the relevance of what is happening and can draw on past and recent history as an example of what has happened and continues to happen.

Some of us recognise the modus operandi all to easily these days and it is easy to say, "ahaa, same old s**t" without any further investigation and that, Ratts of Tobruk, makes one as ignorant as those who wish us to be ignorant rely upon. One has to ask questions and seek to find truths, facts and not become complacent.

It's no conspiracy theory that going into Iraq was based on lies. It's no conspiracy theory that invading Afghanistan was ridiculous when anyone with half an idea knew that Bin Laden and his mob of tyrants were operating out of Pakistan. It's not a conspiracy theory that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda despised Hussein and that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bombing on September the 11th, 2001 and yet, Bush, Blair and Howard just went in there stating that it was to hit Al-Qaeda and stop Hussein using WMDs which anyone with even a semblance of knowledge of recent History and an ability to do even the most basic research, could tell you that those three bastards were telling great big f****ng lies!

It's not a conspiracy theory that Africa is burning but it's in many peoples and organisations interests to keep coverage of such as muted as possible.

I don't know if you actually think that what comes out of the mouths of the US administration and the mass media is near enough to the gospel truth but if you do, I pity you.

Saddam Hussein was America's best friend when it sold/supplied him with Chemical Weapons and "advisers" and up to the minute weaponry to have a war with Iran because the people there stood up to one of the most corrupt and villainous regimes in modern history, The Shah of Iran Pahlavi, for whom the USA government broke it's own rules and allowed him to deposit his wealth in America but that's a conspiracy theory as well I assume, hey? Or how about the imposition of a dictator in Greece by the American's? Another conspiracy theory is it, just like when April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq "unintentionally" told Hussein that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." or the U.S. State Department having earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." AT A TIME WHEN HUSSEIN AND THE YANKS WERE THE BEST OF BUDDIES AND HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED HIM TO DO THIER DIRTY WORK IN IRAN! How do you reckon Saddam took that to mean? A conspiracy theory as well was it? He went from a "good guy" to a "bad guy", a "freedom fighter" to a "terrorist" and you reckon that America does not know that supplying arms to the Syrian Opposition means that in effect, many of these armaments are finding there way to ISIS in Iraq? Are you honestly suggesting that? Are you honestly suggesting that "American Advisors" in what is now the shambles called Libya don't know that chemical and other weapons are finding there way into Syrian Opposition hands?

Not everything is a conspiracy and not everything we are told in the press is the truth and please, don't accuse people of defending tyrants when all they are doing is pointing out that things are not as simple as "good guys versus bad guys".

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Don't call me a conspiracist and don't question my knowledge of what is going on in Africa.

Unlike some others, I don't see conspiracies around every corner nor do I have a paranoid delusion that everything is not what it seems.

I don't know when you were born so I don't know whether you grew up in the era where there was some semblance of investigative journalists and journalism and I don't know if you have any idea as to what the USA/CIA have been doing firstly in Latin and South America and then, post World War Two, in the rest of the world.

Please don't get healthy cynicism mixed up with conspiracy theory and please don't use the, "you're just a conspiracy theorist" to dismiss and disregard what sane and intelligent people say is, in all likelihood happening because some people understand the relevance of what is happening and can draw on past and recent history as an example of what has happened and continues to happen.

Some of us recognise the modus operandi all to easily these days and it is easy to say, "ahaa, same old s**t" without any further investigation and that, Ratts of Tobruk, makes one as ignorant as those who wish us to be ignorant rely upon. One has to ask questions and seek to find truths, facts and not become complacent.

We can put aside all the above as it doesn't address any of the flaws I mentioned in your comment, except for you asking me not to question you on Africa (which I will continue to do given you haven't applied any justification for your previous spurious claim). I know full well that you "don't see conspiracies around every corner" which is why I reacted so negatively to you buying into this one and adding to it with claims of other conspiracies.

It's odd that people accuse the US of falsely accusing Syria of the CW attack, but don't want to call it a conspiracy theory. It would be a conspiracy if they knowingly lied about it being Assad and then attacked him. Of course the Internet is full of utterly BS conspiracies, but that doesn't mean the word 'conspiracy' doesn't still have a clear definition (it should also be kept in mind, incidentally, that if you find yourself veering into thinking a particular group knows everything about the world, or that things that look like mistakes are actually 'part of the plan', then you're probably getting close to conspiracy theory).

It's no conspiracy theory that going into Iraq was based on lies.

Nope. Which is why I mentioned in my comment that it was an illegal war and the worst policy decision in my lifetime. I specifically asked why the other wars were getting thrown in casually with it.

It's no conspiracy theory that invading Afghanistan was ridiculous when anyone with half an idea knew that Bin Laden and his mob of tyrants were operating out of Pakistan.

Ahhh, what? You don't believe Al Qaeda were training in Afghanistan? They were.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda despised Hussein and that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bombing on September the 11th, 2001 and yet, Bush, Blair and Howard just went in there stating that it was to hit Al-Qaeda and stop Hussein using WMDs which anyone with even a semblance of knowledge of recent History and an ability to do even the most basic research, could tell you that those three bastards were telling great big f****ng lies!

Now you've gone back to the Iraq War, which I said was an illegal war, etc. You are deflecting.

It's not a conspiracy theory that Africa is burning but it's in many peoples and organisations interests to keep coverage of such as muted as possible.

What are you talking about? It is a continent with plenty of complexity and does not warrant your generalisations.

I don't know if you actually think that what comes out of the mouths of the US administration and the mass media is near enough to the gospel truth but if you do, I pity you.

Classic conspiracy theory rubbish. "Mass media" is not uniform and it certainly is not "the US administration". Unless you consider it outrageous that they do report on what the administration says? While also widely questioning it and ridiculing it when warranted? That's part of the media's job. How about you put some meat on these accusations and actually try to bring up something which you think is false regarding what is 'coming out of their mouths'? This attempt at generalisation and ad hominem attack is a swing-and-a-miss, and yet as you can see from the similar bunch of likes you got for this post and last - you have an audience for your accusations. Take some responsibility for those accusations and be specific.

Saddam Hussein was America's best friend when it sold/supplied him with Chemical Weapons and "advisers" and up to the minute weaponry to have a war with Iran because the people there stood up to one of the most corrupt and villainous regimes in modern history, The Shah of Iran Pahlavi, for whom the USA government broke it's own rules and allowed him to deposit his wealth in America but that's a conspiracy theory as well I assume, hey? Or how about the imposition of a dictator in Greece by the American's? Another conspiracy theory is it, just like when April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq "unintentionally" told Hussein that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." or the U.S. State Department having earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." AT A TIME WHEN HUSSEIN AND THE YANKS WERE THE BEST OF BUDDIES AND HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED HIM TO DO THIER DIRTY WORK IN IRAN! How do you reckon Saddam took that to mean? A conspiracy theory as well was it? He went from a "good guy" to a "bad guy", a "freedom fighter" to a "terrorist" and you reckon that America does not know that supplying arms to the Syrian Opposition means that in effect, many of these armaments are finding there way to ISIS in Iraq? Are you honestly suggesting that? Are you honestly suggesting that "American Advisors" in what is now the shambles called Libya don't know that chemical and other weapons are finding there way into Syrian Opposition hands?

Not everything is a conspiracy and not everything we are told in the press is the truth and please, don't accuse people of defending tyrants when all they are doing is pointing out that things are not as simple as "good guys versus bad guys".

Again, you're deflecting and trying to put words into my mouth, but at least we've got something on-topic to respond to.

It is not news that there was some support for Hussein from the US before they were against him. Most people who have taken an interest are aware of that. It's unclear why you see it as relevant now, but it appears to be because you want to question the USA as a whole, perhaps suggesting they've been on an immoral quest throughout recent history? That could be an unfair guess, but I know Noam Chomsky fans don't mind this narrative. I personally don't consider the USA to have a single narrative, as it is a Democracy that moves depending on who is voted in; the desires of the people in between votes; external and internal influences (both good, corrupt, incidental, etc.), like any other country.

I think they have done a lot of morally bad things as the world superpower, especially in pursuing anti-Communist crusades and desiring to control the Americas. The Truman Doctrine obviously relates to the anti-Communist element and is pertinent to your comments regarding Greece, which alongside Turkey were on the frontline of the geographic Iron Curtain and split from Western Europe. The US were, according to David Painter, concerned with control of the Middle East too and how that related to Oil. This narrative is one that is still emphasised a lot these days. Maybe that's why you ask my age and part of why I'm thinking you might have a bit of a Noam angle? Essentially I'm wary of the idea that Oil still foremost drives these accusations of immorality against the US or Western "imperialism". I don't think imperialism or the Cold War and oil are anywhere near as influential as they have been (the cold war and oil being interdependent, given the risk then of a very large 'hot war'). And, yes, the same Truman Doctine relates to Iran.

To try and get us back to the issue at hand, though, I don't think the above is integral to Iraq. It explains why the US were there talking to Saddam, but doesn't explain in anyway your accusation that there was fakery involved with the Kuwait War, or even complicity. The cables from April Glaspie are unclassified and available to see here. They show the US and Saddam clearly aren't "best friends" or "best of buddies". Your rhetoric is unhelpful. Saddam is making threats regarding not wanting to be "humiliated" by the US Govt, and being annoyed that some US officials seem to be against him and that small oil nations like Kuwait and the UAE (who America was close with) were operating confidently when they should be more deferential to larger powers like Iraq. In a fairly fascinating illumination of the moving complexity of diplomacy he essentially threatens those small nations (referred to them as US Govt "spearheads") while pointing out he had protected them in the war. The take-away for me here is that it shows how aware he was of the dynamic where people wanted him to act peacefully and the US were protecting those small nations. Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy PM, and a critic of the US (saying George W wanted to go into Iraq for "oil and Israel", not WMD, and a guy who was imprisoned for life following that invasion) dismissed any idea that the Glaspie's oft-taken-out-of-context comments were significant. This is nothing like the Iraq War WMD fiasco.

By the way, can you see some indicative irony in the fact you objected above to people being simplistic on "good guys versus bad guys", yet you have said that, in part, your suspicions are due to the US and Hussein being "BEST OF BUDDIES" and "Saddam Hussein was America's best friend"? They are very simplistic and misleading reductions.

Also, I think if you re-read what you posted in the other thread (which I directly referenced in my reply) and the above, it's a bit rich to suggest you are only trying to undermine the idea of "good guys vs bad guys". You are saying an awful lot more. Including running accusations together in quick succession that America supplies terrorists and knows terrorists are getting Chemical Weapons (the latter of which is true but which is a huge papering-over of the issues around whether Assad did this latest attack, given the much smaller attempts at chemical warfare undertaken by Da'esh or 'rebels'). I'm assuming you are doing the usual US critic thing where they say America trades with the Saudis/Qataris and some Saudis/Qataris support terrorism so therefore America funds terrorism, which is of course a fair bit misleading. American support in Syria is obviously NOT for Da'esh. Via war and corruption and "clandestine" funding (that the US absolutely does not want), Da'esh are getting weaponry or things like Toyota trucks. America makes mistakes, plenty of them massive mistakes, but their support for Kurds or other groups fits exactly with your 'not good or bad guys' point, so why do your questions above emphasise it as if it is clearly 'bad'?

And, as keeps happening, even if you want to dismiss all of my response, why are you so ready to not apply any bad motives to players other than the US? Whether that be Russia/Syria now or Iraq then? The US have been the superpower in our lifetime, but that doesn't stop others from being powerful.

EDIT: for typos/clarity. looong post.

 

[CatFan79]

Ahhh, what? You don't believe Al Qaeda were training in Afghanistan? They were.

Seems like enough reason for the longest war in US history including a regime change and 15+ years continuing occupation.

Then again...

In addition to its vast mineral and gas reserves, Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the World’s supply of opium which is used to produce three quarters of the World's heroin.

The Taliban all but ceased opium production in 2001. Since the invasion and occupation, production has been at record levels.

Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation, 1994–2016 (hectares)

..and what of the images all over the internet of US troops patrolling poppy fields in Afghanistan?

..the war on drugs?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Seems like enough reason for the longest war in US history including a regime change and 15+ years continuing occupation

It isn't a comment at all on the quality of that war. One of the reasons why the Iraq War was particularly egregious is it took forces and focus away from Afghanistan, a place notorious for being very, very, very hard to occupy. With modern warfare and the world understanding why the US wanted to invade there was the best chance to over-throw the backwards ideas of the Taliban, but they screwed it up on an illegal war that continues to prompt world-wide terrorism and of course led to huge amounts of death and destruction and destabilisation. The worst Western policy decision in my lifetime.

Then again...



The Taliban all but ceased opium production in 2001. Since the invasion and occupation, production has been at record levels.

Afghanistan opium poppy cultivation, 1994–2016 (hectares)

..and what of the images all over the internet of US troops patrolling poppy fields in Afghanistan?

..the war on drugs?

This is a side-issue to what we've been discussing re: Assad, but in a side-way it reiterates my point that all the cynicism is narrowly-focussed on the US. So on the economy there's a big focus on the US being a buyer of oil, without a focus on the sellers (Oil countries need to sell their oil to create their country's livelihood - that's good for them). And in your example here, Afghanistan has long had Opium as a primary driver of their economy. Without diving into the detail regarding the above, couldn't we casually say that it appears that the occupying forces have tolerated opium sales to an increasing extent in order to help stabilise Afghanistan's economy (and at least slightly reduce their dependence on money from the occupiers)? The US doesn't want to crush the people. They want Afghanistan to succeed. They invade in 2001 and there's hardly any cultivation. Life goes back to normal under occupation. Then the US are distracted by Iraq and cultivation climbs. There's a brief push-back and then it climbs again, another push-back in 2008/09, but we know the US wants out. Do you think this suggests that increased opium production was what the US wanted?

 

[awaremind]

It isn't a comment at all on the quality of that war. One of the reasons why the Iraq War was particularly egregious is it took forces and focus away from Afghanistan, a place notorious for being very, very, very hard to occupy. With modern warfare and the world understanding why the US wanted to invade there was the best chance to over-throw the backwards ideas of the Taliban, but they screwed it up on an illegal war that continues to prompt world-wide terrorism and of course led to huge amounts of death and destruction and destabilisation. The worst Western policy decision in my lifetime.

This is a side-issue to what we've been discussing re: Assad, but in a side-way it reiterates my point that all the cynicism is narrowly-focussed on the US. So on the economy there's a big focus on the US being a buyer of oil, without a focus on the sellers (Oil countries need to sell their oil to create their country's livelihood - that's good for them). And in your example here, Afghanistan has long had Opium as a primary driver of their economy. Without diving into the detail regarding the above, couldn't we casually say that it appears that the occupying forces have tolerated opium sales to an increasing extent in order to help stabilise Afghanistan's economy (and at least slightly reduce their dependence on money from the occupiers)? The US doesn't want to crush the people. They want Afghanistan to succeed. They invade in 2001 and there's hardly any cultivation. Life goes back to normal under occupation. Then the US are distracted by Iraq and cultivation climbs. There's a brief push-back and then it climbs again, another push-back in 2008/09, but we know the US wants out. Do you think this suggests that increased opium production was what the US wanted?

False assumption that massive amounts of opium production is ever going to be beneficial to a nation.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

False assumption that massive amounts of opium production is ever going to be beneficial to a nation.

?

They sell it. Of course they'd prefer to sell something else, but it gets good money and can be grown. Much like Australia burns coal and sells it even though we'd prefer not to since it's a big polluter. Money is beneficial to communities and nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan

 

[awaremind]

?

They sell it. Of course they'd prefer to sell something else, but it gets good money and can be grown. Much like Australia burns coal and sells it even though we'd prefer not to since it's a big polluter. Money is beneficial to communities and nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Afghanistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use
They also have nearly twice the rate of use of heroin as the second most using nation, Russia.

 

[WeetBixKid]

Don't call me a conspiracist and don't question my knowledge of what is going on in Africa.

Unlike some others, I don't see conspiracies around every corner nor do I have a paranoid delusion that everything is not what it seems.

I don't know when you were born so I don't know whether you grew up in the era where there was some semblance of investigative journalists and journalism and I don't know if you have any idea as to what the USA/CIA have been doing firstly in Latin and South America and then, post World War Two, in the rest of the world.

Please don't get healthy cynicism mixed up with conspiracy theory and please don't use the, "you're just a conspiracy theorist" to dismiss and disregard what sane and intelligent people say is, in all likelihood happening because some people understand the relevance of what is happening and can draw on past and recent history as an example of what has happened and continues to happen.

Some of us recognise the modus operandi all to easily these days and it is easy to say, "ahaa, same old s**t" without any further investigation and that, Ratts of Tobruk, makes one as ignorant as those who wish us to be ignorant rely upon. One has to ask questions and seek to find truths, facts and not become complacent.

It's no conspiracy theory that going into Iraq was based on lies. It's no conspiracy theory that invading Afghanistan was ridiculous when anyone with half an idea knew that Bin Laden and his mob of tyrants were operating out of Pakistan. It's not a conspiracy theory that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda despised Hussein and that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bombing on September the 11th, 2001 and yet, Bush, Blair and Howard just went in there stating that it was to hit Al-Qaeda and stop Hussein using WMDs which anyone with even a semblance of knowledge of recent History and an ability to do even the most basic research, could tell you that those three bastards were telling great big f****ng lies!

It's not a conspiracy theory that Africa is burning but it's in many peoples and organisations interests to keep coverage of such as muted as possible.

I don't know if you actually think that what comes out of the mouths of the US administration and the mass media is near enough to the gospel truth but if you do, I pity you.

Saddam Hussein was America's best friend when it sold/supplied him with Chemical Weapons and "advisers" and up to the minute weaponry to have a war with Iran because the people there stood up to one of the most corrupt and villainous regimes in modern history, The Shah of Iran Pahlavi, for whom the USA government broke it's own rules and allowed him to deposit his wealth in America but that's a conspiracy theory as well I assume, hey? Or how about the imposition of a dictator in Greece by the American's? Another conspiracy theory is it, just like when April Glaspie, the US Ambassador to Iraq "unintentionally" told Hussein that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." or the U.S. State Department having earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." AT A TIME WHEN HUSSEIN AND THE YANKS WERE THE BEST OF BUDDIES AND HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED HIM TO DO THIER DIRTY WORK IN IRAN! How do you reckon Saddam took that to mean? A conspiracy theory as well was it? He went from a "good guy" to a "bad guy", a "freedom fighter" to a "terrorist" and you reckon that America does not know that supplying arms to the Syrian Opposition means that in effect, many of these armaments are finding there way to ISIS in Iraq? Are you honestly suggesting that? Are you honestly suggesting that "American Advisors" in what is now the shambles called Libya don't know that chemical and other weapons are finding there way into Syrian Opposition hands?

Not everything is a conspiracy and not everything we are told in the press is the truth and please, don't accuse people of defending tyrants when all they are doing is pointing out that things are not as simple as "good guys versus bad guys".

Path to Persia. A destabilized Syria benefits Israel & hurts Iran. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Syria... no wonder Tehran want a nuclear program. Everyone on their doorstep that's part of their sphere of influence is being grinded down into failed states, & this suits Israel/the U.S perfectly. I thought Trump would be different & leave the M.E alone, maybe I was wrong.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_prevalence_of_opiates_use
They also have nearly twice the rate of use of heroin as the second most using nation, Russia.

Obviously. I said they would no doubt prefer not to. But you said it was a "false assumption", which didn't make sense.

Path to Persia. A destabilized Syria benefits Israel & hurts Iran. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Syria... no wonder Tehran want a nuclear program. Everyone on their doorstep that's part of their sphere of influence is being grinded down into failed states, & this suits Israel/the U.S perfectly. I thought Trump would be different & leave the M.E alone, maybe I was wrong.

Syria isn't on Iran's doorstep. Georgia is closer - are you going to accuse Russia of being in on this conspiracy of your's? Dare I ask how your theory works?

 

[WeetBixKid]

Obviously. I said they would no doubt prefer not to. But you said it was a "false assumption", which didn't make sense.

Syria isn't on Iran's doorstep. Georgia is closer - are you going to accuse Russia of being in on this conspiracy of your's? Dare I ask how your theory works?

Work it out mate. A nuclear Iran is the biggest threat to Israel, so they see anything that disrupts Iran as a positive. Furthermore Syria has been co-operating with Iran for the past 30 years, they share religious ties, & Syria shares a border with Israel. If Assad gets through this it will be thanks in large part to Iran & their ties will deepen. What Israel wants least is two Iranian proxies on their border (Lebanon + Syria).

From Clinton's emails:

The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

 

[Seeds]

If it's loaded....Then almost always.

The only people who regularly encounter loaded questions are either hypocrits or people who are making logical errors. If loaded questions are something you believe you are regularly encountering then maybe you need to reflect on this and work out where you are going wrong.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The only people who regularly encounter loaded questions are either hypocrits or people who are making logical errors. If loaded questions are something you believe you are regularly encountering then maybe you need to reflect on this and work out where you are going wrong.

LOL.

 

[Northalives]

Work it out mate. A nuclear Iran is the biggest threat to Israel, so they see anything that disrupts Iran as a positive. Furthermore Syria has been co-operating with Iran for the past 30 years, they share religious ties, & Syria shares a border with Israel. If Assad gets through this it will be thanks in large part to Iran & their ties will deepen. What Israel wants least is two Iranian proxies on their border (Lebanon + Syria).

From Clinton's emails:

Hang on, didn't Julie "I love a cocktail party" Bishop orgasm multiple times when she announced that Australia was going to share intelligence with Iran?

I remember thinking at the time, where is the outrage? Iran are part of the "evil empire" aren't they? Where was the outrage for this stupid, stupid initiative? Uncle Sam tells us what to do and we do it without any qualms.

 

[CatFan79]

They invade in 2001 and there's hardly any cultivation. Life goes back to normal under occupation. Then the US are distracted by Iraq and cultivation climbs.

Do you even read? Cultivation ceased under the Taliban's rule as producing the drug was seen as anti-islam. Post-US invasion the production sky-rockets, there's photos and videos all over the web of US soldiers patrolling/protecting opium fields and your explanation is 'the US want the poor farmers to earn a living'? LOL you must be joking.

There's a brief push-back and then it climbs again, another push-back in 2008/09, but we know the US wants out. Do you think this suggests that increased opium production was what the US wanted?

The global heroin trade is worth $61 billion a year, supported by powerful interests.

You'd have to be ignorant not to realise an objective of the Afghanistan invasion was to restore the opium trade, it's obvious.

 

[scoccerroos]

Not really. But the U.S. should probably not intervene and let the Syrians fight their own fight.

 

[Mofra]

Path to Persia. A destabilized Syria benefits Israel & hurts Iran. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Syria... no wonder Tehran want a nuclear program. Everyone on their doorstep that's part of their sphere of influence is being grinded down into failed states, & this suits Israel/the U.S perfectly. I thought Trump would be different & leave the M.E alone, maybe I was wrong.

Most Trump supporters pre-election kept saying the same thing, despite his instability leaving that assumption as one fraught with danger.

He's now in a two-front showdown with proxy battles against Russian interests (Syria) and Chinese interests (North Korea) and has already flagged a skyrocketing defence budget.
For all the "Killary" calls, Trump in his first few months has shown he's as hawkish as any of his GOP brethren.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Work it out mate. A nuclear Iran is the biggest threat to Israel, so they see anything that disrupts Iran as a positive. Furthermore Syria has been co-operating with Iran for the past 30 years, they share religious ties, & Syria shares a border with Israel. If Assad gets through this it will be thanks in large part to Iran & their ties will deepen. What Israel wants least is two Iranian proxies on their border (Lebanon + Syria).

From Clinton's emails:

You haven't explained your theory. Is Russia's destabilisation of Georgia part of what you consider to be an anti-Iran/pro-Israel plan? Is the US working in Syria with Russia to destroy extremists who are the enemy of Assad part of what you consider to be an anti-Iran/pro-Israel plan?

And what you are suggesting is "from Clinton's emails" is actually a column by James P. Rubin that he sent to Clinton and she then sent to someone to print. There is zero indication of her support for the commentary, and given it was written in 2012 there is plenty of actual evidence of what happened in real life that suggests she did not support the over-the-top statements and war-hawk approach of Rubin. Clinton, as a part of Obama's team, was foremost criticised for only caring about the use of chemical weapons - the same approach the USA is seemingly taking under Trump, although the most recent destruction (120-odd evacuees from Aleppo getting killed, with about half being children) is putting that position to the test.

Do you even read? Cultivation ceased under the Taliban's rule as producing the drug was seen as anti-islam.

Yes, I can read - both words and graphs - and I challenge you to find ANYONE who would agree with your suggested interpretation above.

Post-US invasion the production sky-rockets, there's photos and videos all over the web of US soldiers patrolling/protecting opium fields and your explanation is 'the US want the poor farmers to earn a living'? LOL you must be joking


The global heroin trade is worth $61 billion a year, supported by powerful interests.

You'd have to be ignorant not to realise an objective of the Afghanistan invasion was to restore the opium trade, it's obvious.

You seem to want to argue aggressively your point with over-the=top rhetoric and without relying on logic. I think if you actually want to have this conversation we can start by trying to agree on what the graphs on cultivation ACTUALLY show, rather than your spin above. Then we can move on to how realistic your other claims are.

 

[WeetBixKid]

You haven't explained your theory. Is Russia's destabilisation of Georgia part of what you consider to be an anti-Iran/pro-Israel plan? Is the US working in Syria with Russia to destroy extremists who are the enemy of Assad part of what you consider to be an anti-Iran/pro-Israel plan?

And what you are suggesting is "from Clinton's emails" is actually a column by James P. Rubin that he sent to Clinton and she then sent to someone to print. There is zero indication of her support for the commentary, and given it was written in 2012 there is plenty of actual evidence of what happened in real life that suggests she did not support the over-the-top statements and war-hawk approach of Rubin. Clinton, as a part of Obama's team, was foremost criticised for only caring about the use of chemical weapons - the same approach the USA is seemingly taking under Trump, although the most recent destruction (120-odd evacuees from Aleppo getting killed, with about half being children) is putting that position to the test.

I've explained it the best I can, you either think the pieces fit or they don't. Here's General Clark talking about the neocon foreign policy. Who benefits big from either a U.S controlled, or crippled Lebanon, Iraq, Syria & Iran? Israel.



What happens in Georgia isn't a priority for Iran or Israel & if some limited co-operation against ISIS is enough to convince you the Western coalition wants a stable Syria despite arming 'moderate' rebels & facilitating 6 years of chaos so be it.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I've explained it the best I can, you either think the pieces fit or they don't. Here's General Clark talking about the neocon foreign policy. Who benefits big from either a U.S controlled, or crippled Lebanon, Iraq, Syria & Iran? Israel.



What happens in Georgia isn't a priority for Iran or Israel & if some limited co-operation against ISIS is enough to convince you the Western coalition wants a stable Syria despite arming 'moderate' rebels & facilitating 6 years of chaos so be it.

You actually haven't explained it in any detail at all. You said "work it out mate" and gave a summary that begged clarification due to the flaws in the argument, and the lack of addressing other movers in the region. So I wanted more detail and a response that took into account that complexity and you haven't provided it. 'The west' had done relatively little against Assad, and Trump had explicitly stated he didn't want to get involved, but you want to blame them all due to Israel. What bet you've previously gone on about the US relationship with the Saudis and the Saudi relationship with extremism? How does that fit into your theory of this being all about Israel, considering how much those extremists are against Israel?

Pretending everything can be blamed on any one thing really is daft - whether that one thing is 'imperialism', Islam, Israel, oil, money, Hillary, whatever.

 

[WeetBixKid]

You actually haven't explained it in any detail at all. You said "work it out mate" and gave a summary that begged clarification due to the flaws in the argument, and the lack of addressing other movers in the region. So I wanted more detail and a response that took into account that complexity and you haven't provided it. 'The west' had done relatively little against Assad, and Trump had explicitly stated he didn't want to get involved, but you want to blame them all due to Israel. What bet you've previously gone on about the US relationship with the Saudis and the Saudi relationship with extremism? How does that fit into your theory of this being all about Israel, considering how much those extremists are against Israel?

Pretending everything can be blamed on any one thing really is daft - whether that one thing is 'imperialism', Islam, Israel, oil, money, Hillary, whatever.

I never said it was all Israel mate. I'm saying that based on who's benefiting from U.S foreign policy, I think it makes sense that they're one of the driving forces.

Obama was in theory an anti-war democrat so he was constrained by domestic issues. How could he do much directly? Arming and supporting rebels isn't relatively little, it's the biggest thing he could have done.

The Saudis hate the Persians too. So even if they disagree on Israel re: Palestine, the three of them (U.S, Israel, Saudi Arabia) will happily all align against Iran and Syria. They fit perfectly together.

 

[CatFan79]

You seem to want to argue aggressively your point with over-the=top rhetoric and without relying on logic. I think if you actually want to have this conversation we can start by trying to agree on what the graphs on cultivation ACTUALLY show, rather than your spin above. Then we can move on to how realistic your other claims are.

Your 2nd attempt at talking around the obvious (yes, it is) without attempting to give any type of argument. Fail Fail.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Your 2nd attempt at talking around the obvious (yes, it is) without attempting to give any type of argument. Fail Fail.

I'm pretty sure WeetBixKid and I have very little in common politically, and there was a lack of common understanding above about what we were each talking about, but you can see how there is still some attempt to communicate. You have made no such effort. No-one would read those graphs as you have. You are writing fiction, demanding to be treated as non-fiction. No dice. If you want to be treated even slightly seriously, drop the stupid rhetoric.

 

[nut]

Kerry busy cleaning it all up now.

Mosul will fall soon and the world will be at peace again until the US needs another enemy.... North Korea?

Like clock work...