Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16447625

This debunks the "fully democratic" bit.

Either the military has been plotting to bring down the elected government via a terrorist network or the Islamist government is using the courts to remove political opponents via trumped up charges. There is no other option.

Either way it is bizarre that so many people use Turkey as an example of a successful Muslim democracy. It is anything but. It has never been anything but a banana republic where secularism was enforced but military coups and the military friendly governments declared minorities not to exist (see they are "Mountain Turks"), banned their languages and sent people to prison for "insulting Turkishness" e.g. discussing the Ottoman genocide of Armenians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am amazed that a/ you think that a general threatening a military coup is something that happens in democratic states

 

There was a serious threat of a military coup in the UK in the mid 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There already is foreign military intervention in Syria. The Assad Regime is being kept afloat by the Iranians and Hezbollah plus with help from the Russians.

As opposed to the "rebels" being propped up by turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with money, weapons and fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Islamist regimes will ultimately be brought down like the Iron Curtain was ... not by guns but by Coca Cola, western pop music, western fashion,  western TV, internet porn  and Levi jeans. Their youngsters will refuse to put up with oppression from ageing theocrats. Iran will be the first to fall ... it has a very young population-range, national elections and a relatively good level of education. The rest will follow when their regimes can't be propped up by Iranian petrodollars. 

 

All we have to do is wait twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a serious threat of a military coup in the UK in the mid 70s.

*trying hard not to laugh*

Go ahead enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Islamist regimes will ultimately be brought down like the Iron Curtain was ... not by guns but by Coca Cola, western pop music, western fashion,  western TV, internet porn  and Levi jeans. Their youngsters will refuse to put up with oppression from ageing theocrats. Iran will be the first to fall ... it has a very young population-range, national elections and a relatively good level of education. The rest will follow when their regimes can't be propped up by Iranian petrodollars. 

 

All we have to do is wait twenty years.

I would tend to agree with you but twenty years is too optimistic (except perhaps for Iran). I think countries need to go through Islamism before they reject it. Egypt, Syria etc haven't really had it yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to the "rebels" being propped up by turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with money, weapons and fighters.

 

True. So why state that the removal of chemical weapons could potentially result in foreign military intervention, when it is already happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when was MI5 part of the military?

 

I'd imagine it must have been at some point with a name like 'Military Intelligence'... :D;)

 

(I know they were part of the War Office...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd imagine it must have been at some point with a name like 'Military Intelligence'... :D;)

 

(I know they were part of the War Office...)

A long, long time ago perhaps but they've been part of the Home Office for decades and certainly were at the time of the Wilson "incident" (or "non-incident").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long, long time ago perhaps but they've been part of the Home Office for decades and certainly were at the time of the Wilson "incident" (or "non-incident").

 

I was messing around...

 

As for the Russian chemical weapons proposal, I wonder if they are just stalling the Americans...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24038120

 

"...The US, UK and France are to table a UN Security Council resolution but Russia has already indicated opposition. The resolution will call on Syria to publicly declare that it has a chemical weapons programme, place it under international control and dismantle it. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the motion was designed to ensure that Russia's offer was "not a ruse". "We need a proper timetable, process and consequences if it's not done," he said..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when was MI5 part of the military?

When did bugging equal a "military coup"?

I"m agreeing with you.

It didn't happen.

MI5 has said so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. So why state that the removal of chemical weapons could potentially result in foreign military intervention, when it is already happening?

Foreign military intervention by the US and France which would be a game changer just like in Libya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign military intervention by the US and France which would be a game changer just like in Libya.

 

Well they aren't planning an intervention and never have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they aren't planning an intervention and never have been.

 

Well they aren't planning an intervention and never have been.

 

*points*

 

*laughs*

 

*laughs some more*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they aren't planning an intervention and never have been.

Oh dear, both houses of congress are about to vote on whether to give president Obama military authorization to strike syria. Also Barack Obama has just given 6 separate interviews to 6 different US news channels and is about to address the nation tonight in order to make the case for military strikes to a sceptical and war wary nation that only 11% currently support military action against Syria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Islamist regimes will ultimately be brought down like the Iron Curtain was ... not by guns but by Coca Cola, western pop music, western fashion,  western TV, internet porn  and Levi jeans. Their youngsters will refuse to put up with oppression from ageing theocrats. Iran will be the first to fall ... it has a very young population-range, national elections and a relatively good level of education. The rest will follow when their regimes can't be propped up by Iranian petrodollars. 

 

All we have to do is wait twenty years.

I seem to remember a backlash against such things did contribute to the uprising against the Shah. Not internet porn, of course, but then such indulgences hardly makes one an active revolutionary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they aren't planning an intervention and never have been.

The US and France aren't planning an intervention and never have been. Is that what you're saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted - can't be bothered anymore.

LOL, You mean you've put your foot in it and wont admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, You mean you've put your foot in it and wont admit it.

Just because someone decides they can't be bothered doesn't mean you've won the argument, it may just mean that someone with specific and detailed experience of the subject matter at hand as a day job can't be bothered explaining the same thing again and again only for it to be misinterpreted, willfully by some.

 

A punitive strike on Syria for their chemical weapons strike is not an intervention in Syria.  For me, that's obvious.  I am willing to admit though that I may be looking at this from a militaristic interpretation of the word "intervention", my interpretation of the word is a substantive "taking sides" interpretation rather than the "any sort of action" that seems to be the interpretation others have used on here.  I've not seen anything from any of the governments involved, US, UK or France, that suggests we're even remotely interested in regime change as a result of this.  If there were then I'd not support it, I'd strongly condemn it, as I did in the other thread a couple of months ago about arming the rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because someone decides they can't be bothered doesn't mean you've won the argument, it may just mean that someone with specific and detailed experience of the subject matter at hand as a day job can't be bothered explaining the same thing again and again only for it to be misinterpreted, willfully by some.

 

A punitive strike on Syria for their chemical weapons strike is not an intervention in Syria.  For me, that's obvious.  I am willing to admit though that I may be looking at this from a militaristic interpretation of the word "intervention", my interpretation of the word is a substantive "taking sides" interpretation rather than the "any sort of action" that seems to be the interpretation others have used on here.  I've not seen anything from any of the governments involved, US, UK or France, that suggests we're even remotely interested in regime change as a result of this.  If there were then I'd not support it, I'd strongly condemn it, as I did in the other thread a couple of months ago about arming the rebels.

It's not a case of me being right and geordiesaint being wrong but a matter of being factually correct. Geordiesaint has/is claiming that the US isn't planning on military intervention in Syria all while Barack Obama put a resolution up for vote to both houses of congress, the house and senate asking for military authorization in which to strike Syria, not to mention Obama appearing on 6 different cable news channels outlining his position and trying to win over and drum up support from a war wary and spectical US public. Also a "punitive" strike on Syria is no different than a full blown out "shock and awe" type bombardment , it's still military intervention and the Syrians wouldn't view it any differently and why should they. Would we(UK) or the US think that a "punitive" strike carried out against us by another country wasn't military intervention or war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017