Syria 3

102 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2012-01-19 18:00

Fidel

Syria 3

Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media

Assad's popularity, Arab League observers, US military involvement: all distorted in the west's propaganda war

The Guardian wrote:
Suppose a respectable opinion poll found that most Syrians are in favour of Bashar al-Assad remaining as president, would that not be major news? Especially as the finding would go against the dominant narrative about the Syrian crisis, and the media considers the unexpected more newsworthy than the obvious.

Alas, not in every case. When coverage of an unfolding drama ceases to be fair and turns into a propaganda weapon, inconvenient facts get suppressed. So it is with the results of a recent YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates, funded by the Qatar Foundation. Qatar's royal family has taken one of the most hawkish lines against Assad - the emir has just called for Arab troops to intervene - so it was good that The Doha Debates published the poll on its website. The pity is that it was ignored by almost all media outlets in every western country whose government has called for Assad to go. ...

Tue, 2012-01-24 08:13

Merowe

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/ian-black-syria-q-a

I think Ian Black gives a pretty fair report here with an indication of the complexities, and the real challenges of producing straightforward answers, even for an old Syria hand like himself.

Tue, 2012-01-24 21:30

Fidel

Ian Black wrote:
Christians have traditionally supported the regime and seen it as a defence against sectarianism. Regime supporters often stress the danger of Islamic extremism, citing Salafis and al-Qaida-type groups, but the extent of that seems to be deliberately exaggerated by the authorities.

Black is surely a master of exaggeration and hyperbole himself. It was a U.S.-backed KLA and Qaeda friendlies who attacked government forces in the former Yugoslavia.

It was LIFG, a terrorist organization the U.K. said before June 2011 was affiliated with Al-Qaeda, that started an armed insurrection in Gadaffi's Libya and with plenty of help from the CIA and NATO.

And it is NATO's Al-Qaeda commander in Tripoli heading the "Free Syrian Army" today.

[url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://dprogram.net...

The US-Al Qaeda Alliance: Bosnia, Kosovo and Now Libya. Washington's On-Going Collusion with Terrorists Peter Dale Scott, former Canadian diplomat

Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1997/iran.htm

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which was supported by NATO, had developed extensive ties to the Islamic terror network

http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

Charade they are.

Thu, 2012-01-26 15:36

NDPP

The Truth Behind the Coming 'Regime Change' in Syria - by Shamus Cooke

http://www.countercurrents.org/cooke250112.htm

"...The Syrian government opposition bloc inside Syria, the National Coordination Committee, opposed foreign military intervention. A leader of the NCC is Hassan Abdul Azim, who wisely states:

'We refuse on principle, any type of foregin military intervention because it threatens the freedom of our country.."

Fri, 2012-01-27 15:35

NDPP

Gulf States to Arm Syrian Opposition? (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/arming-syria-rebels-saudi-913

"...Gulf states' opponents of the regime in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have reportedly come to an agreement to offer financial aid to Syria's flagging opposition movement for the purchase of much needed arms. A secret meeting has been conducted between opposition leaders and Saudi and Qatari officers to discuss funding for the movement's dwindling weapons supply.

Dr. Ibrahim Alloush, a professor at Zautouneh University in Jordan has told RT that the arming and funding of the Syrian opposition comes mainly from the Arab Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and from Turkey and NATO...

'It is obvious that both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are harboring an agenda of overthrowing the Syrian regime because it opposes Western political, military and cultural intervention in the region,' he said.

Dr. Alloush says that the point of the operation is to implode Syria socially so that there will not be any 'central government that is able to fend off and protect the sovereignty of the country.

This is basically a replica of what took place in Libya with only one exception - that Russia has so far prevented NATO from having its way of having no-fly zones, buffer zones and all kinds of zones that infringe on the sovereignty of Syria,' Alloush said.

(see interview)

Sun, 2012-01-29 21:47

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Free Syrian Army 'captures Iranian soldiers'

Quote:

Members of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) say they have taken hostage seven Iranians, five of whom were allegedly soldiers complicit in the Syrian government's violent crackdown on protesters in the opposition-controlled city of Homs.

The Farouk Brigade of the FSA, an umbrella group of members of the country's security forces who defected to protect civilians from the government's attacks, say they will not release the hostages until the government frees a defected army officer and ends the prolonged military siege on Homs.

A video released by the FSA fighters purports to show five of the captured Iranians and their identity cards, which allegedly reveal that they are part of Iran's security forces. The defected troops say the other two hostages were civilians.

Mon, 2012-01-30 22:21

NDPP

Syria: Are Captured Iranians Military Men or Engineers?

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2105510,00.html

"...Is this proof of Iran sending military reinforcements to prop up its main Arab ally? Or could something else be happening there? On December 21, Syria state media reported that eight foreign engineers including five Iranians were abducted 'by terrorists' as they traveled on a company bus to their place of work, the Jandar power plant on the outskirts of Homs.

The men in the video bear a resemblance to the five engineers abducted in December. Their names also appear to match..."

Tue, 2012-01-31 10:36

NDPP

'Assad Will Die Like Gaddafi' - Syrian Opposition

http://rt.com/news/syrian-opposition-warns-assad-145/

"A leading member of the Syrian opposition has threatened President Assad, his British wife and three children with a bloody Gaddafi-esque end. Meanwhile, the West continues to push for a resolution to help the Syrian opposition oust Assad.

'We came, we say, he died,' joked Hillary Clinton after Gaddafi's death. It now looks very much as if the scenario is repeating itself, with Clinton saying the US will throw its weight behind the Arab-backed condemnation of Assad's regime..."

Russia Opposes 'Libyan Scenario' in Syria (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/russia-assad-talks-opposition-083/

Assad Must Go, No Foreign Forces in Syria: UNSC (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/un-resolution-syria-russia-131/

"...But Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Monday he has no intention of telling President Assad to step down. Moscow says the new UN resolution contains a threat to 'adopt further measures if Syria does not comply with the terms of the resolution,' opening the door to a Libyan-style foreign intervention in the conflict-torn Middle-Eastern country.

Reportedly, tensions are running so high that the US Secretary of State's spokeswoman has accused Russian FM Sergey Lavrov of being unavailable by phone when Hillary Clinton allegedly called to discuss the situation.."

Tue, 2012-01-31 20:53

Merowe

Article translated from the original here: http://international.daralhayat.com/internationalarticle/355882, I think gives useful insight into the practical issues confronting progressive Syrians:

"Yassin Al-Haj Saleh just published this article in Al-Hayat about militarism, violence, and the revolution . Given that it falls right in our discussion, I have spent sometime to translate it to English using machine translation as a start and then performing very heavy editing. I think it is a good article coming from an intellectual who is not only on the inside, but also on the run.

Yassin Haj Saleh - Regarding militarism and violence and revolution

Little can be gained from discussing the growing military dimension of the Syrian revolution without placing it in the context of the 320 days of unconstrained and rampant violence practiced by the regime in its attempt to quell the revolt from the outset. Not much can be gained either by discussing intellectual, political, and psychological shifts that have occurred and are occurring in the society and within the revolution's own environment throughout these bloody months. The outlines are known. The regime threw the army in to confront the foci of the Revolution and It killed many in the field who who refused to fire on their fellow citizens (Human Rights Watch report in December), leading some officers and soldiers to defect and out of these defections a loose umbrella was formed under the name «the Free Syrian Army FSA». The regime directed punitive and vengeful disciplinary campaigns akin to colonialist campaigns at cities and towns in and around Damascus, Homs, Hama, Idlib, and Deir Al-Zour , which resulted in civilians picking up arms here and there to face regime's forces, albeit the regime has already pushed civilians in the conflict since the beginning and on a large scale: the Shabbeeha.

These circumstances, which are known to all, imply an authentic military component of the revolution that can't be overlooked in the context of its intellectual or political planning considerations. This dimension is neither brought from the outside nor does it possess an ideological underpinning that may have preceded its emergence.

The emergence of this armed component does not undercut, today or since its beginning, the overarching peaceful character of the revolution. The peaceful nature of the revolution is rooted in its social composition, in the type of its demands, and in its primary protest tools (i.e., demonstrations), and not in any ideological preference or political tactics. It is now known that the juxtaposition of peaceful demonstrations flying banners and shouting chants and armed groups firing bullets does not say anything about what is happening in reality, but only covers the ignorance of those making such argument of the reality of what is happening with only figurative approximations.

In fact, it would not have been possible for the peaceful demonstrations to continue in most of their sites had it not been for the protection provided by the Free Syrian Army with both of its military and civilian component and had it not been for its relative deterrence of the striking arms of the regime.

Refusal to see this reality does not change it and hinders its understanding and more so the ability to influence it. And perseverance in reiterating argument against the arming of the revolution and against militarization without the slightest indication of a cessation of violence from the regime is akin to blaming the victims for their resistance to the aggressors. There are no nationalistic or humanitarian justifications for such an attitude.

There is no doubt that at abstract values level, peaceful resistance is preferable to armed resistance. However, we are not in a store shopping for this or that, but in macro-scale reality, which imposed on a substantial number of Syrians the need to defend themselves as they faced a regime whose precise composition is what breeds hatred and violence and not emergent exigencies, nor popular demands, as a massive Syrian minister had recently uttered.

What requires understanding and caution is that resorting to militarism can be associated, and today is actually becoming associated with anarchist and undisciplined practices. We can not deal with this reality with puritanical logic that refuses any armed resistance, or objects to the revolution itself under the pretext of the anarchist practices that may occur under its banners. This will not work as long as the regime persists in its own militarization. What could be useful is to work at the level of the revolution, not from outside or above, towards the direction of uniting the militant and civilians in a single concerted body and that the military component of the revolution be disciplined and directed by its general interest. This is not easy, and there is nothing that guarantees its accomplishment at the required level, but to continue singing about peaceful actions is a recipe that ensures it does not happen at all.

Notwithstanding the prospects for chaos, violence is formatively elitist and un-democratic, and expansively spread of its exercise, even if it is disciplined, may raise the threshold of identification with the revolution and weaken the participation of women and children and the elderly. Our choices, however, are not between militarization and the non-militarization, but between unchecked and undisciplined militarism, and that of a checked, and perhaps more disciplined militarization.

Furthermore, political change achieved by armed force may result in many social, political and security complexities, which is less favorable to democratic development than a peaceful transformation. But, again, our choices are not free, and the military component of the revolution is a byproduct of the intrinsic violence of the regime, not because of someone's will or decision.

The key point in all this debate is that there remains no room to restore the original innocence that predated blood, or to leisurely talk about facing the regime's violence with bare chests, especially when expressed by those who do not participate in the revolution, neither with their chests nor with their backs. What is needed instead of illusionary innocence are initiatives and work toward military, political, and moral discipline of force. We have a chaotic unchecked reality, and the intellectuals and politicians perform their duty when they work to make it rational and organized and not when they purify and distance themselves from it. This is weakness.

In fact, some of what is being said regarding militarism is driven by objection to the revolution itself and not by objection to the legitimacy of some of the practices under its banner. Revolution means the removal of the legitimacy of the regime and the denial of its national and public character, and, consequently, considering its violence a factional and unpatriotic, and the denial of any legitimacy and generality of any of its organs, which establishes the foundations for the new legitimate and popular, which is he revolution itself. While this does not confer an automatic legitimacy on all violence that may be exercised in its name or shadow, the only position that provides consistent objection to the uncontrolled violence is a position from within the revolution and with it, and not outside it or against it. Certainly, revolutionary violence is more legitimate than the violence of a regime murdering the people. It is a multiplier of legitimacy in that it is essentially forced and defensive even when it is offensive at the tactical level.

There is already a genuinely peaceful mood in the revolution that dislikes violence, even in self-defense. But the best defense of peaceful action is to participate in the revolution including on the ground, and to work hard to strengthen its civil nature. The worst defense is to sit on the sidelines and singing praise of the beauty of peaceful actions.

From the viewpoint of action, there is a need for legitimate public entity, that transcend the external embrace of the revolution's cause and the standing beside it towards engagement in the revolution and the intellectual, political, and organizational morphing in manners responsive to its evolution and growing complexity. Such a public body would have coordinated between the components of the revolution and led it to achieving its national objective. Alas, this is not available. But one of the causes of optimism in Syrian Revolution is the multiplicity of the centers of thought and initiative, which proceed without the guidance of anyone, and never stop working in order to discipline the militarization and to develop the civil and popular character of the revolution.

----
Yassin Haj Saleh
Syrian dissident writer and
Dar Al Hayat
Sunday, 29/01/2012"

Tue, 2012-01-31 21:11

#10

Fidel

Thanks Merowe.

Ahmed Shawki wrote:
revolution: we have studied in history books, biography of many of the revolutions we could not find any way to the similarity between these revolutions and what is happening in Syria, but on the contrary, what is happening in Syria, disfigured in an ugly concept of revolution, and what happens to the Syrian territory in the hands of individuals known by their communities with their behavior abnormal (real thugs), but evidence confirming the horror of what is happening and can not be the actions of real revolutionaries.

Wed, 2012-02-01 12:23

#11

NDPP

Al Jazeera Plans Regime Change in Syria (and vid)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224328.html

"The Syrian ambassador to the UN has slammed the Qatari government and its state-run television, Al Jazeera, for their role in what he has called an anti-Syrian campaign of violence and interference.

Press TV talks with Conn Hallinan from the Foreign Policy in Focus, in Berkeley regarding the issue..."

Wed, 2012-02-01 13:02

#12

Fidel

What Is Really Going On In Syria: Insider Update by Boris Dolgov

Quote:
In the last two months Syria has seen a number of [u]terrorist attacks. The terrorist attacked Syrian servicemen and military facilities, law enforcement agencies institutions, blasts on oil pipelines, railroads, murders and taking of hostage among peaceful citizens (In the city of Homs insurgents killed five well known scientists), arson of schools and killing of teachers[/u] (since March 2011, 900 schools have been set on fire and 30 teachers have been killed). ...

The armed opposition which conducted terrorist attacks in Syria is represented by a number of groups from a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to the Libyan radical Islamists and [url=http://www.ahmedrehab.com/blog/2011/03/al-qaeda-as-we-know-it-does-not-e...Al Qaeda.[/size][/url] According to the information we receive from our Syrian colleagues there are training camps for insurgents in Lebanon and Turkey. The officers of security services of NATO, Turkey and some Arab states are in charge for the training and armament of the insurgents, while the monarchies of the Persian Gulf provide the financing.

[url=http://digitaljournal.com/article/310883][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com...

Congratulations to the American CIA, NATO and their Al-CIA'duh terrorist friends in orchestrating yet another 'Arab Spring' "uprising", this time in Syria. Turkey and Lebanon are the staging countries for terrorist attacks inside Syria just as Costa Rica and Honduras were staging countries for the Condoms, I mean, "Contras" attacking innocent civilians, bombing and burning schools and hospitals in cold war era Nicaragua in the 1980s. The war on democracy continues.

Wed, 2012-02-01 21:02

#13

NDPP

Syrious Rebels (and vid)

http://rt.com/programs/crosstalk/syrious-questions-syria-assad/

"Will the international community resort to force in Syria? What if Assad stays in power for much longer than most experts predict? And will Syrians be able to topple the Assad government without foreign interference? Is Syria the next Libya or will it follow its own unique path? Cross talking with Marwa Daoudy, Maxmillian Forte and David Pollock."

Thu, 2012-02-02 22:18

#14

NDPP

Who Is Syrian Opposition? West Has No Idea (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/syria-opposition-foreign-intervention-321/

"...It is wrong to compare the Syrian opposition to their Libya counterparts, believes Mehdi Hasan, who is senior political editor with New Statesman magazine. The Syrian opposition is far less homogenous.

'There is this division between the external opposition figures, like the leader of the Syrian National Council, who is based in Paris, and those who are on the streets, who have said again and again to Western reporters, to human rights groups - 'We don't want military intervention.' ' We are opposed to both the Syrian president, the Assad regime, and we are opposed to Western intervention.

We saw what happened in Iraq,' the journalist says. Mehdi Hasan says the opposition Free Syrian Army, consisting of defectors from the Syrian military, may be deliberately exaggerating its might to justify a Western intervention.

Organizations like the FSA have cropped up in many other places where the West has intervened, Hasan tells RT.."

Syria Resolution Text Agreed - Russia's UN Envoy (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/syria-united-nations-russia-377/

"...Diplomats have reportedly agreed to drop demands for an arms embargo against Syria and the resignation of President Bashar al Assad.."

Fri, 2012-02-03 19:54

#15

NDPP

Syria Resolution Part of Proxy War Against Iran (and vid)

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/02/syria-resolution-part-proxy-war-agai...

"Neil Clark, a journalist and contributor to the Guardian, believes that Russia's stance on Syria has much more international support than one may assume.."

Sun, 2012-02-05 00:13

#16

NDPP

Exposed: The Arab Agenda in Syria - by Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html

"Here's a crash course on the 'democratic' machinations of the Arab League - rather the GCC League, as real power in this pan-Arab organization is wielded by two of the six Persian Gulf monarchies composing the Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as Gulf-Counter-Revolution CLub, Qatar and the House of Saud.

Essentially, the GCC created an Arab League group to monitor what's going on in Syria. The Syrian National Council - based in NATO member countries Turkey and France - enthusiastically supported it. It's telling that Syria's neighbor Lebanon did not. When over 160 monitors, after one month of enquiries, issued their report...surprise!

The report did not follow the official GCC line - which is that the 'evil' Bashar al Assad government is indiscriminately and unilaterally killing its own people, and so regime change is in order. So the report was either ignored (by Western corporate media) or mercilessly destroyed - by Arab media, virtually all of it financed by either the House of Saud or Qatar. It was not even discussed - because it was prevented by the GCC from being translated from Arabic into English.

Until it was leaked. Here it is in full...

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible. So the current 'Arab-led drive to secure a peaceful end to the 10-month crackdown' in Syria at the UN, is no less than a crude regime-change drive. Usual suspects, Washington, London and Paris..."

Sun, 2012-02-05 01:15

#17

NDPP

Obama: UN Must Take Stand Against Assad's 'Relentless Brutality'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/obama-un-must-take-stand-against...

"Obama in a written statement said the attack was an 'unspeakable assault' and urged Assad to step down from power. 'Assad must halt his campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. He must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately,' he said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe countered that 'those who block the adoption of such a resolution are taking a grave historical responsibility' in light of the Homs bloodshed, which he called a 'crime against humanity.' The government denied the assault. It said the reparts are part of a 'hysterical campaign' of incitement by armed groups against Syria, meant to be exploited at the UN Security Council as it prepares to vote.."

Canada Slams UN 'Paralysis on Syria

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/02/04/pol-canada-syria-un-sec...

"Canada is 'disappointed in the extreme' by the UN Security Council's 'paralysis' after Russia and China vetoed a resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down. 'Today's failure by the UN Security Council to effectively deal with the crisis in Syria is yet another free pass for the illegitimate Assad regime and those backing it,' Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said in a statement issued from Tel Aviv on Saturday.

The New Democrats also weighed in, calling on the federal government to 'immediately recall Canada's ambassador from Syria but also to apply diplomatic intervention.' 'We call on the Canadian government to immediately exert diplomatic pressure on China and particularly Russia in order to secure a UN resolution of the crisis,' said NDP foreign affairs critic Helene Lavardiere in a written statement."

ndp= no difference party regime-change again anyone?

Sun, 2012-02-05 14:33

#18

NorthReport

Assad, this wonderful supporter of human rights, might as well pack his suitcase now, as he is on the way out, and probably sooner rather than later. It's just a matter of time. Looks like the power shift is continuing to occur in the Middle Esst. Iran, being on the wrong side of the fence, will probably be next.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/05/syria-brink-civil-war?INTCMP...

Sun, 2012-02-05 14:52

#19

NorthReport

Coalition forces. Where have we heard that term before?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibnfMMuChdANEyWBuOeV4T...

Sun, 2012-02-05 15:27

#20

Fidel

Lies and Double Standards: Crimes against Humanity: Syria or the US?

Stephen Lendman wrote:
Shortly before 1PM EST, February 4, Reuters headlined, "Russia, China veto UN resolution telling Assad to quit," saying:

The diplomatic "setback" came the day after "Syrian opposition (elements) accused Assad's forces of killing hundreds of people (in) Homs, the bloodiest night in the 11 months of upheaval in the pivotal Arab country."

Like other pro-Western media, Reuters pointed fingers the wrong way. Throughout the conflict, Assad was blamed for Western-backed externally generated violence. In fact, he's more victim than villain, but don't expect media scoundrels to explain.

Shortly before the Security Council vote, Obama called the Homs violence "unspeakable," demanded Assad step down immediately, and urged Security Council action against his "relentless brutality."

His public statement falsely claimed:

Obama the war criminal wrote:
"Yesterday the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help."

"Any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern."

Since 1991 alone, Obama, Bush I and II, as well as Clinton, murdered millions of Iraqis, Serbians, Kosovars, Afghans, Libyans, Somalis, Yemenis, and many others ruthlessly and maliciously.

Today, Obama supports atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as well as Israel's decades-long war on Palestine. Major media scoundrels ignore them. Instead, they cheerlead imperial US wars. Power takes precedence over truth and full disclosure.

John Pilger once called journalism the first casualty of war, adding:

"Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognized in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries...."

Our lapdog news media are publishing war propaganda which is a crime against humanity and punishable by international laws since Nuremberg. They should be strung-up by their nuts.

Sun, 2012-02-05 15:37

#21

Fidel

<a href="http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/HITLER1.htm">Adolf Hitler on 9/1/39</a> wrote:
Deputies, if the German Government and its Leader patiently endured such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British Government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Polish Government to conduct serious negotiations with us.

These proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change.

Adolf Hitler on the SS' covert terrorist attacks at Gleiwitz and falsely blamed on Polish nationals on the eve of launching blitzkrieg over Poland.

Sun, 2012-02-05 15:48

#22

NorthReport

Canada, USA & the UK - quite the group we are allied with, eh!

William Hague accuses Russia and China as Syria heads toward 'civil war’
William Hague on Sunday accused Russia and China of “tipping Syria closer to civil war” as he urged the Arab League to take the lead in international efforts to force President Bashar al-Assad from power.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9062794/Willi...

Sun, 2012-02-05 15:50

#23

NDPP

UN Shenanigans on Syria - by Aisling Byrne

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak03.html

'vicious, nasty business', 'aggressive pressure...by US diplomats', ferocious pressure on weaker non-permanent members,' the 'type of pressure that is very, very difficult for weaker countries to resist.'

That's how a former British diplomat at the UN, Carne Ross, described last September's UN showdown over the Palestinian Authority's bid for recognition for statehood. 'This is how power works', he said.

He might have added 'money', for the route to the UN Security Council in the case of Syria this week, has been one of bullying, bribery, unprecedented procedural violations at the Arab League, along with media manipulations and significant distortions of reality...

...Senior political sources have confirmed that last September Qatar 'bought' the president's position of the Arab League from the Palestinians in return for a donation of US$400 million in 'aid' to PA President Mahmoud Abbas...The presidency - along with its position as chair of the League's Syria committee - gave Qatar the opportunity to pursue Assad's fall.

Pro regime-change commentators argue that 'Syria looks more like Libya every day.' If it does, it is because the mainstream narrative on Syria is intentionally constructed to be so - in order to justify the call for external intervention. But this doesn't mean it is necessarily correct.

The extraordinary act of war by Qatar and Saudi Arabia agreeing to supply weapons to armed insurgents in a fellow Arab state in any other situation would be called state-sponsored terrorism, particularly given the evidence a majority of Syrians do support Assad..."

Mon, 2012-02-06 02:19

#24

NDPP

Syria Vote: US 'Appropriated' UN Power (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/syria-us-vote-russia-547/

"While officials in Washington tirelessly admonish Russia and China for blocking another resolution on Syria, Rick Rozoff of STOP NATO tells RT that the UN has been hijacked by the US and NATO.

'Were armed groups to invade the territory of the United States from Mexico or Canada, I can assure you Washington's response would not be limited to a domestic one,' Rozoff said.." (see interview)

'US, Arab Puppets Seek Syrian Civil War' (and vid)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/225023.html

"A prominent political analyst says the UN draft resolution on Syria had been initiated by the Israel-backed US and Arab countries seeking to instigate a civil war in the country.."

Mon, 2012-02-06 03:44

#25

NDPP

Clinton Calls for 'Democratic Forces' to Unite on Syria

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/05/syria.html

"US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling for 'friends of democratic Syria' to unite and rally against President Bashar Assad's regime. She said the 'friends of Syria' could work with the opposition groups to promote their goals. Such a group could be similar to the Contact Group on Libya, which oversaw international help for opponents of the last deposed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs said the failure of the UNSC to effectively respond to the crisis in the Middle Eastern country was 'yet another free pass for the illegitimate Assad regime and those backing it..."

Tue, 2012-02-07 03:49

#26

NDPP

Harper Rejects Calls to Pull Ambassador From Syria

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-rejects-calls-to-pul...

"The official Opposition wants Canada's ambassador recalled from Syria, but the government says he will stay in the country to blast President Bashar Assad for his attacks on domestic dissenters.."

that's why they're called a 'loyal opposition'..

Tue, 2012-02-07 04:35

#27

NDPP

Heading for War in Syria - by Stephen Lendman

http://warisacrime.org/blog/4155

"Washington's longstanding policy is regime change in Iran and Syria. At issue is replacing independent regimes with client ones and securing unchallenged control and valued Middle East resources..."

Tue, 2012-02-07 05:00

#28

Fidel

Jeez, it's becoming harder to tell the difference between the NDP and the other two parties when it comes to Ottawa's long time second-hand foreign policy.I guess they realized that some large number of Canadian voters weren't even considering the marathon US-led military occupation of Afghanistan when voting last year. And I guess Canada is doomed to never having a permanent seat on the UN war council.

I suppose this might even open doors for the NDP to all those soft and disaffected Liberal and Tory voters who could switch to the NDP next election if deciding that old line party policies on domestic and other issues affecting Canadians in Canada need updating to reflect 21st century reality and modern democracy in general.

NDP looking good for first past the post victory in 2015. And it'll prolly be a phony majority, too. It's all so unfair.

Tue, 2012-02-07 06:05

#29

NDPP

US on UN Veto: 'Disgusting', 'Shameful', 'Deplorable', 'A Travesty'....Really?

A Quick Listing of Veto Use at the UN 1972-2011

http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/4237/us-oil-un-veto_disgusting-sham...

"Including Resolutions against decades of atrocities and violations often supported and/or bankrolled by the US"

Tue, 2012-02-07 18:41

#30

NDPP

Assad Ready for Talks, 'Fully Commits' To End Violence - Lavrov (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/syria-lavrov-talks-damascus-657/

"Syria's President Assad has agreed to talks with the opposition and will follow the Arab League's roadmap, increasing the number of observers in the country, even in the most hostile areas in Syria. Russia's Foreign Ministry has announced that President Assad has agreed to send a government delegation to Moscow to meet with representatives of the opposition. The parties reaffirmed their readiness to use the Arab League's initiative to find 'a swift way out of the crisis.'

Damascus is to shortly announce a national referendum to draw up a new constitution. Officials expect the referendum to be set for March. After the referendum, the country will go to parliamentary polls, so far planned for May.

Moscow has called on the Arab League to expand its observing mission, dubbing it a 'crucial stabilizing factor for Syria'."

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:06

#31

Merowe

Today's Dem Now (Feb 7/12) has a very pertinent interview with a Brit journalist, Patrick Seale, who does as good a job as any I've yet heard, of not just acknowledging the complexity of matters there but correctly identifying the different interests at play.

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:07

#32

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[b]Imperialism or fascism? There is a third option.[/b]

Joseph Massad wrote:
In the context of the US invasion of the Gulf in 1991, British academic Fred Halliday announced his new right-wing affiliations in the British newspaper the New Statesman by declaring: "If I have to choose between imperialism and fascism, I choose imperialism." It never occurred to Halliday that he could have opposed both and supported home-grown democratic struggles instead.

This was indeed a watershed moment for [b]Arab, American, and European anti-imperialist leftists who would become turncoats, moving from a principled opposition to imperialism to a principled and financially more rewarding support of it.[/b]...

[b]Iraq[/b]
The stark opposition that Halliday drew between American imperialism and Saddam's despotic rule preceded the events of 9/11 and the re-introduction of the term "fascism" in a slightly altered form to fit US imperialism's new enemies, namely the neologism "Islamofascism", which another British turncoat, Christopher Hitchens, had done so much to disseminate.

At the time, many Arabs, Europeans, and Americans (myself included), who have been unwavering critics of Saddam Hussein's despotic and terroristic rule and US imperialism's genocidal wars against Third World enemies, opposed the first US invasion of the Gulf in 1991 and the ensuing 12-year siege, which cost more than a million Iraqi lives, as well as the subsequent US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its 8-year occupation of the country, which killed another million Iraqis.

Opposition to US invasions of Iraq and Kuwait stemmed neither from any illusions about the nature of Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime nor from his alliance with the Saudi theocratic state and its smaller Gulf partners. It came even less from his military strategic alliance with France and the United States from the late 1970s onwards, in the service of which he invaded Iran in 1980 and sacrificed the lives of one million Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis. On the contrary, it was based on a sober assessment of these realities and [b]the costly impact of imperial invasions[/b]....

The Iraqi exile opposition insisted along with its US imperial sponsors and the chorus of pro-war American intellectuals that people should make one of two choices: for or against Saddam. While the US and its Iraqi partners had their way, the subsequent destruction of Iraq, the dismantling of its state structures, and the destruction of its societal cohesion is the clearest illustration of what such a choice entailed for the Iraqi people and their country.

[b]Libya[/b]
[b]In 2011, we were treated to a repeat performance of the very same scenario.[/b] The Libyan exile opposition and those inside the liberated parts of the country, consisting mostly of erstwhile servants of the Qaddafi regime, began to call for a NATO invasion of Libya to help the Libyan people in their uprising against Qaddafi. Again, many anti-imperialist and pro-democracy Arabs and non-Arabs cautioned that while Qaddafi had been a merciless despot for four decades and had become an ally of the United States and Europe for the last decade of his rule, a western imperial invasion of the country would not be in the interest of most Libyans. Rather, it would entail the destruction of the country, with thousands of casualties, for the sole purpose of controlling Libya's oil wealth and not in the interest of establishing democratic rule. Again the Libyan opposition allied with imperial powers, like its Iraqi predecessor, immediately challenged any opponent of the imperial invasion to make one of two choices: for or against Qaddafi....

[b]Syria[/b]
Like Saddam, the Assad dynastic regime has been an ally of the Saudi theocracy and its junior Gulf partners, and an agent of US imperialism in the region, especially in its major intervention in Lebanon in 1976 at the invitation of the Christian fascist forces who called the Syrians in to help them crush the leftist revolutionary movement in the country, including the PLO. The role played by the Syrian regime (in conjunction with Israeli advisors) in the horrific Tel al-Za'tar massacre in 1976, when thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered at the hands of fascist Maronite forces abetted by the Syrian army, is now the stuff of history.

Moreover, [b]the Assad regime again proved most helpful to its US and Saudi sponsors when it joined the imperial coalition to invade the Gulf in 1990-91 under the US flag. On the Zionist front, the Syrian regime proved as pliant as the Jordanian one, ensuring the security of Israel's "borders", which Israel conquered and established inside Syria's and Jordan's own territories.[/b] Internally, the regime has used and continues to use draconian measures to suppress, repress, and oppress the Syrian people mercilessly (though still not to the extent of Saddamist repression, which no Arab regime has ever reached). [b]By calling for imperial military intervention, the Syrian exile opposition invokes, without originality, the very same puerile yet insidious choices presented to anti-imperialist and pro-democracy Arabs and non-Arabs by the erstwhile bankrupt Iraqi and Libyan exile oppositions, namely, that there is only one choice to be made: for or against Assad.[/b]

Unlike Fred Halliday and his pro-imperialist Arab and non-Arab acolytes, we need never choose between imperialism and fascism; we must unequivocally opt for the third choice, which has proven its efficacy historically and is much less costly no matter the sacrifices it requires: fighting against domestic despotism and US imperialism simultaneously (and the two have been in most cases one and the same force), and [b]supporting home-grown struggles for democratic transformation and social justice that are not financed and controlled by the oil tyrannies of the Gulf and their US imperial master.[/b]

[url=http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/2012269456491274.html]Al Jazeera[/url]

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:37

#33

NDPP

Syria Standoff No Arab Spring - Former Russian PM

http://rt.com/politics/syria-arab-primakov-foreign-561/

"Russia spared no effort to enable dialogue between the Syrian authorities and opposition, but the opposition refused all offers Primakov writes, suggesting that the reason behind this could be foreign political advice. Primakov goes on to disclose the plan of those wanting to displace President Assad.

He says the US and its NATO allies [Canada] seek to use the current situation in the Arab world to remove leaders with whom they are not happy - primarily due to their support for Iran.."

Canada Joins in Diplomatic Offensive Against Assad Regime

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canada-joins-in-diplomatic-off...

"...US President Barack Obama said the Syrian leader's departure is only a matter of time.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to broach Beijing's ongoing support for the Assad government during his trip to China this week - but he faces a delicate task as he will be keen not to derail expanding bilateral relations.

'China does not accept the accusation that it is protecting Mr al-Assad's regime while it wages war against its own people, Mr Liu said. 'China does not have its own selfish interest on the isssue of Syria. We don't shelter anyone. We uphold justice on the Syrian issue.'

Canada also plans to raise its concerns about Iran's nuclear-program and threats toward Israel. But Mr Harper would be naive to assume President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabo will be listening when he meets them this week."

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:51

#34

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

[url=http://www.thestar.com/article/1127001--ndp-urges-stephen-harper-to-pull... complains that Stephen Harper is not hawkish enough on Syria.[/url]

"Get in there, Steve, and flex those imperialist muscles," NDP foreign affairs critic says.

Tue, 2012-02-07 19:55

#35

NDPP

Here's the Patrick Seale Interview referred to above by Merowe: (and vid)

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/2/7/a_struggle_for_regional_supremacy_s...

Wed, 2012-02-08 00:17

#36

Ken Burch

Look, if it becomes clear that the Syrian people are not going to be able to stop Assad from slaughtering them by the thousands, the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, etc., does the "anti-imperialist" position HAVE to be that everybody outside of Syria is obligated to stand aside and let him do that?

Why does opposition to imperialism have to mean letting a head of state bomb his own people into subservience?

I'm against NATO intervention and for the "third choice" option in the Al Jazeera link above...but, Christ, does "anti-imperialism" HAVE to mean doing nothing while people are being massacred by the government they live under for no reason?

What, if anything, would be any non-imperialist way of acting to prevent the massive loss of innocent life that's going on now in Syria?

And how does saying "Hands off Assad" serve any radical purpose at all? It's not as if you have to say "Leave Syria alone, no matter what" in order to fight against intervention in Venezuela or Bolivia or Cuba.

Clearly, no revolutionary goal could be furthered by letting Assad stay in power and keep doing all this. There's no way the loss of all these people could lead to a socialist future for the world.

Seems to me that this is taking the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing to an insanely ludicrous extreme.

Wed, 2012-02-08 01:33

#37

JKR

M. Spector wrote:

[b]Imperialism or fascism? There is a third option.[/b]

This is a great way to comprehend the issue.

Wed, 2012-02-08 08:40

#38

NDPP

West, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Curb Syrian National Dialogue (and vid)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/225602.html

"After failing to ratify an anti-Syria resolution at the UN, the US-backed Persian Gulf kingdoms of Qatar and S. Arabia have started using other methods to escalate pressure on this country. Press TV has talked with Ahmad Shalash, the chief of al-Basaraya tribe from Damascus about his insights on the Syrian unrest..."

Wed, 2012-02-08 10:13

#39

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

What, if anything, would be any non-imperialist way of acting to prevent the massive loss of innocent life that's going on now in Syria?

Heavy indeed lies the white man's burden!

"It's not that we [b]want[/b] to be imperialists; we're just [b]forced[/b] to be imperialists by the Saddams and the Qaddafis and the Assads.

"It's all for the good of humanity, dont'cha know."

- the lament of the Predator-drone humanitarians.

Wed, 2012-02-08 10:18

#40

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Look, if it becomes clear that the Syrian people are not going to be able to stop Assad from slaughtering them by the thousands, the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, etc., does the "anti-imperialist" position HAVE to be that everybody outside of Syria is obligated to stand aside and let him do that?

Good question.

What if, election after election, it becomes clear that a radical right-wing party continues to impose its dictatorship over a population although a clear majority votes against it in every election?

Would foreign invasion be justified to unseat that dictatorial regime?

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:23

#41

Ken Burch

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Look, if it becomes clear that the Syrian people are not going to be able to stop Assad from slaughtering them by the thousands, the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, etc., does the "anti-imperialist" position HAVE to be that everybody outside of Syria is obligated to stand aside and let him do that?

Good question.

What if, election after election, it becomes clear that a radical right-wing party continues to impose its dictatorship over a population although a clear majority votes against it in every election?

Would foreign invasion be justified to unseat that dictatorial regime?

Well, that is what it took to stop Hitler. He was never going to be overthrown by internal forces. Besides, if you took some of the arguments in this thread to their logical extreme, you'd end up arguing that Britain, France and the U.S. were being "anti-imperialist" in letting Franco bomb the shit out of Guernica without doing anything to stop him.

Is there some way, at the least, to do something to help the anti-Assad people in Syria(who are, after all, the only ones who want the police state thing there to end)as this situation goes on?

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:23

#42

Ken Burch

M. Spector wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

What, if anything, would be any non-imperialist way of acting to prevent the massive loss of innocent life that's going on now in Syria?

Heavy indeed lies the white man's burden!

"It's not that we [b]want[/b] to be imperialists; we're just [b]forced[/b] to be imperialists by the Saddams and the Qaddafis and the Assads.

"It's all for the good of humanity, dont'cha know."

- the lament of the Predator-drone humanitarians.

I'm as anti-Predator and anti-imperialism as you are, Spector. I'm just asking if any outside intervention HAS to be considered imperialist. The International Brigades, after all, were outside intervention in the affairs of Spain.

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:41

#43

welder

Fidel wrote:

<a href="http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/HITLER1.htm">Adolf Hitler on 9/1/39</a> wrote:
Deputies, if the German Government and its Leader patiently endured such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British Government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Polish Government to conduct serious negotiations with us.

These proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change.

Adolf Hitler on the SS' covert terrorist attacks at Gleiwitz and falsely blamed on Polish nationals on the eve of launching blitzkrieg over Poland.

Interesting you bring up Adolph Hitler in the face of apparent covert attempts to usurp the Ba'Athist regime in Syria...

Ba'Athism,of course,having roots in European Fascism,but,that's another discussion...

However,since your so up on Islamofasci..Oops...Militant Islam...Could you elucidate for all of us the goings on with The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem(circa 194,'41),his ties to Hitler,the Nazi Party,and more specifically,the SS....And...The brigade The Grand Mufti sent to Yugoslavia???

How this ties in with Yasser Arafat (not his real name),the wacky and zany Hamas Manifesto,and,the general tone of the folks calling the shots in Tehran?

And please Fidel,for the love of everything that's cool...Please don't turn this into a "But the US and Capitalism is really really bad!!!" obfuscation...Just deal with the questions asked...

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:47

#44

Ken Burch

We can't wage a Western war to wipe out Baathism, welder. All doing that would do would be to strengthen Baathism. And what the hell does Arafat's name have to do with anything? A lot of leaders of various causes changed their names...does that matter?

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:48

#45

welder

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Look, if it becomes clear that the Syrian people are not going to be able to stop Assad from slaughtering them by the thousands, the tens of thousands, the hundreds of thousands, etc., does the "anti-imperialist" position HAVE to be that everybody outside of Syria is obligated to stand aside and let him do that?

Good question.

What if, election after election, it becomes clear that a radical right-wing party continues to impose its dictatorship over a population although a clear majority votes against it in every election?

Would foreign invasion be justified to unseat that dictatorial regime?

Well, that is what it took to stop Hitler. He was never going to be overthrown by internal forces. Besides, if you took some of the arguments in this thread to their logical extreme, you'd end up arguing that Britain, France and the U.S. were being "anti-imperialist" in letting Franco bomb the shit out of Guernica without doing anything to stop him.

Is there some way, at the least, to do something to help the anti-Assad people in Syria(who are, after all, the only ones who want the police state thing there to end)as this situation goes on?

Is'nt this how Fascist regimes maintain power when thier own populace turns against them?

These bloodthirsty Ba'Athists will not stop because they want power for the sake of power...The Assad's have done this before and clearly,have no compunction about decimating their own people again.Totalitarian gov't's of all stripes care very little of the people they lord over...

The problem here,besides the card carrying members of the Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory Society,is that doing nothing will guarantee hundreds of thousands of deaths of people who are essentially under the lash of a brutal dictatorship.I don't see that as heroic at all....

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:51

#46

Unionist

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What if, election after election, it becomes clear that a radical right-wing party continues to impose its dictatorship over a population although a clear majority votes against it in every election?

Would foreign invasion be justified to unseat that dictatorial regime?

Well, that is what it took to stop Hitler.

Umm, I was referring to the Harper regime - and how we would view a Russian-Chinese invasion, invited by some "insurgents", to overthrow it.

Quote:
Besides, if you took some of the arguments in this thread to their logical extreme, you'd end up arguing that Britain, France and the U.S. were being "anti-imperialist" in letting Franco bomb the shit out of Guernica without doing anything to stop him.

You may have forgotten that it was Hitler's Luftwaffe - not Franco - that bombed the shit out of Guernica. Franco's invasion from North Africa, in alliance with Germany and Italy, was a clear instance of international aggression aimed at overthrowing the Spanish republican government. The international community would have been entirely within its rights - and obligations - to intervene on the side of the victim of aggression. Nuremburg established that principle and the United Nations enshrined it. Doesn't mean they uphold it very consistently.

Quote:
Is there some way, at the least, to do something to help the anti-Assad people in Syria(who are, after all, the only ones who want the police state thing there to end)as this situation goes on?

The anti-Assad people? As opposed to the innumerable pro-Assad people? No, I think international intervention to support an insurgent force is against international law, and it's not a good idea for you to decide what the Syrian people want. It's a civil war, by all accounts. That's why these days, new excuses have to be invented. "He's committing genocide against his own people." That's a good one, works well. Better than, "They won't let their females go to school."

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:53

#47

welder

Ken Burch wrote:

We can't wage a Western war to wipe out Baathism, welder. All doing that would do would be to strengthen Baathism. And what the hell does Arafat's name have to do with anything? A lot of leaders of various causes changed their names...does that matter?

I don't disagree....It seems Ba'Athism,or Pan-Arab Nationalism,is basically in its death throes...And not a moment too soon,in my estimation...

And the other stuff is basicaly shooting holes in the conspiracy theory of ol' Fidel...

Check out who Arafat was related to and how it ties into The Grand Mufti vis a vis Herr Schickelgruber...And them note the modern attitudes of the fun loving folks in Hamas and the folks in Tehran...

Very interesting...And scary!

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:54

#48

Ken Burch

The Baathists are what you say they are. But what has produced the cynicism about outside intervention among many here is the way that such interventions, in the past, have led to Western takeovers of the countries where the intervention occurred(as was the case in Iraq, which is now nothing but an American colony).

Really, what we need here, perhaps, is an international movement to give the UN peacekeeping forces the capacity to have a real effect in keeping warring factions apart, since the U.S.(my country)has made it clear that it won't intervene anywhere without "getting something" in return.

Or, we need a new system of International Brigades to be able to intervene on behalf of civilian populations without being tied to anybody's imperial agenda.

Wed, 2012-02-08 16:56

#49

welder

Unionist wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Unionist wrote:

What if, election after election, it becomes clear that a radical right-wing party continues to impose its dictatorship over a population although a clear majority votes against it in every election?

Would foreign invasion be justified to unseat that dictatorial regime?

Well, that is what it took to stop Hitler.

Umm, I was referring to the Harper regime - and how we would view a Russian-Chinese invasion, invited by some "insurgents", to overthrow it.

Quote:
Besides, if you took some of the arguments in this thread to their logical extreme, you'd end up arguing that Britain, France and the U.S. were being "anti-imperialist" in letting Franco bomb the shit out of Guernica without doing anything to stop him.

You may have forgotten that it was Hitler's Luftwaffe - not Franco - that bombed the shit out of Guernica. Franco's invasion from North Africa, in alliance with Germany and Italy, was a clear instance of international aggression aimed at overthrowing the Spanish republican government. The international community would have been entirely within its rights - and obligations - to intervene on the side of the victim of aggression. Nuremburg established that principle and the United Nations enshrined it. Doesn't mean they uphold it very consistently.

Quote:
Is there some way, at the least, to do something to help the anti-Assad people in Syria(who are, after all, the only ones who want the police state thing there to end)as this situation goes on?

The anti-Assad people? As opposed to the innumerable pro-Assad people? No, I think international intervention to support an insurgent force is against international law, and it's not a good idea for you to decide what the Syrian people want. It's a civil war, by all accounts. That's why these days, new excuses have to be invented. "He's committing genocide against his own people." That's a good one, works well. Better than, "They won't let their females go to school."

Interesting...

What are your feelings on Stalin's involvment and arming of the Republican side during The Spanish Civil War??

The Chinese involvment in the Korean conflict?

The Soviet involvment in Viet Nam?

Wed, 2012-02-08 17:06

#50

welder

Ken Burch wrote:

The Baathists are what you say they are. But what has produced the cynicism about outside intervention among many here is the way that such interventions, in the past, have led to Western takeovers of the countries where the intervention occurred(as was the case in Iraq, which is now nothing but an American colony).

Really, what we need here, perhaps, is an international movement to give the UN peacekeeping forces the capacity to have a real effect in keeping warring factions apart, since the U.S.(my country)has made it clear that it won't intervene anywhere without "getting something" in return.

Or, we need a new system of International Brigades to be able to intervene on behalf of civilian populations without being tied to anybody's imperial agenda.

While I might entetain the idea of subterfuge in Libya,I'm fairly certain this is not the case in Egypt and I don't think this is the case in Syria.I think many people in Syria have seem what has happened in neighbouring countries and have decided the struggle was worth it.I have always felt that Syria,short of Saudi Arabia,would be the toughest nut to crack in the overthrow of these despotic regimes in the Arab world mainly because of the murderous history of the Assad's.

They simply don't care about the people they rule over...I assume they think of them as nothing more than extraneous obstacles to be done away with as quickly as possible when they get out of line.The problem with peacekeeping,in this case,is that The Assad's would most likely attempt to kill the peacekeepers,along with the Syrians standing up to them.

And as far as the US goes in this conflict...

1.The US is broke...This would most likely be a lengthy protracted military engagement and the US cannot afford this.

2.This is an election year,and after getting rid of Osama Bin Laden and withdrawing from Iraq (sort of),Mr.Obama is'nt likely to go rushing headlong into another contretemps in the Middle East.

Wed, 2012-02-08 17:34

#51

Unionist

welder wrote:

What are your feelings on Stalin's involvment and arming of the Republican side during The Spanish Civil War??

Not sure what you mean by "involvement". I don't recall Stalin bombing Spanish cities, or sending Soviet troops in, if that's what you mean. And I guess you mean the Republican government? I don't like arms sales, but every government in the world buys arms as far as I know, and that's considered as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty.

Quote:
The Chinese involvment in the Korean conflict?

Can't answer - don't know enough.

Quote:
The Soviet involvment in Viet Nam?

Same question as before - what "involvement"? I do recall the "involvement" of the U.S., Australia, many other countries that sent invasionary troops, bombed cities, and napalmed the population. I don't recall the Soviets doing anything like that. Do you mean selling arms again, to the government of North Viet Nam? That would have been lawful.

Pages

Topic locked