Syria

JimmyV

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

If Assad is guilty of chemical attacks on his own people then Assad is evil enough to order chemical attacks on his own people. He would have been evil enough with or without Western involvement in Syria. No one can say with any certainty that these attacks, if they happened, wouldn't have happened under different circumstances.

I suppose that’s true...but is their precedent for assad using chemical weapons prior to the ‘Civil War’?  

I don't know.

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Drowned Out said:

You guys and your WW2 references ....it's pathetic.  



Can I bring up all of the turn of the century mass murders of US citizens during the labour movements?  The 1800's slaughter of NA aboriginals?  
Stalin....

Funny this is mentioned... I think many here still think that nuking Japan actually saved millions of lives.

Well it did. You do realize that after the second bomb was dropped the Japanese war cabinet was tied 3-3 on whether or not to continue the war.  Millions of Japanese still wanted to fight even after two atomic bombs. 

No, it didn't. That is 100% intentional American propaganda that you're basing this on. Japan was only 2 weeks or so away from surrendering when they dropped those bombs. If Truman hadn't been a fool about them being allowed to keep their Emperor, which they did anyway at the end of the day, that war would have ended immediately without the nukes. In fact, those nukes had very little to nothing to do with them surrendering in any case. They were going to surrender because of the threat they suddenly felt coming from the Russian allies.

Give me the proof that they were two weeks away from surrendering. Show Me some credible document.  If that was the case then why was it 3-3 even after Nagasaki? That isn’t not American propaganda that is fact. 

The proof is found in more extensive research not spoiled by the bullshit American version of events. Try doing some reading about the issue and you'll find plenty of info about it from various view points, and the common factor is that the American line that you're touting comes out as a pretty obvious falsehood. Your demand for "hard proof" is a bit ironic though, considering the complete lack of any such thing for the version of the story that you believe.
The only reason it was 3-3 is because of that Emperor issue that I mentioned (as Truman refused in order to essentially show off their shiny new bomb). But even then, right at that time Russia invaded Manchuria, and that is what was going to get them to surrender anyhow. This is according to all sorts of accounts on both the Japanese and the American military sides. Do you realize how many people in the American military leadership were against nuking Japan for these very reasons? And how contested those casualty estimates "had the bombs never been dropped" are? When Truman gushed about that aspect, he kept ratcheting up the estimates in order to make sure the American people stayed on his side, given the horrors that came out of his decision to drop the bombs.
Just FYI, fun fact: your understanding of this debate places you in what's called the "Traditionalist School". There are of course many, many people who still believe what you are saying, and what is taught in the American education system (and in the Canadian education system too, FWIW), but it isn't for lack of evidence to the contrary. It shows off the power of nationalistic propaganda. 

Just to counter a few of your points:
estimates changed because:  he asked Marshall about casualties that would be incurred in carrying the planned invasions through to the Tokyo Plain. The published version of Truman's letter states that Marshall told him it would cost "at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million." (61)

A plausible inference some observers have made is that the fact that these numbers were dramatically higher than those which Marshall had presented at the 18 June meeting with the President was probably the result of knowledge that the Japanese were positioning a much larger defense than had been forecast. (62) This notion carries a further implication that Marshall's statement was influential in the decision to use the atomic weapon. If true, this would establish a link between the intelligence reporting and the decision to drop the bomb.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html#rtoc7
 

mcgruff10

same source about estimates:
The casualty estimates for the invasion of Japan had been constructed before the receipt of evidence that defensive forces on Kyushu would be much higher than initially expected. Even so, they were excluded from the presentation to Truman on 18 June, apparently because of concern over how the President might react. If, as the evidence seems to show, Marshall was indeed in possession of the latest Kyushu estimates at the time the detailed report of the Alamogordo test was being read in Potsdam (21 July), he would have known even then (a) that the overall number of Japanese combat divisions on Kyushu already exceeded what had been expected by the invasion date still three months away, and (b) that the number for the south--where the landings were to take place--was at least double what had been forecast. Under those conditions, it is not unreasonable, as has been argued, to postulate that Marshall could have--without stretching--responded to a question on expected casualties by citing estimates that he had known about earlier but had considered higher than he wanted to accept, or higher than he thought the President could accept.

same source

There is no record that any revised casualty estimates were actually produced as a result of the dramatically changed SIGINT picture of the opposing forces that an invasion would have encountered. But a meeting held specifically in response to intelligence showing a much- larger-than-expected buildup of opposition forces would not have been able to duck the casualty implications of that information.

same source

the original estimates by the Joint War Plans Committee and by MacArthur's staff had been produced when both groups were forecasting opposing forces only half the size that now awaited them. And even those casualty estimates had been purposely excluded from the briefing of a President who had said he planned to "make his decision...with the purpose of economizing to the maximum extent possible in the loss of American lives."

mcgruff10

Ok I"m not going to research all night lol.  I still think it was the correct decision since japan was not going to surrender and like I said, I have never seen actual proof that they were going to surrender in two weeks.  If that is case show it to me and I'll change my mind.  And I have a ba and 12 grad credits in history so I definitely know how to do extensive research.  My senior thesis was published in some historical journal.  

brianlux

Holy cow!  I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject. 

Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)

cincybearcat

brianlux said:

Holy cow!  I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject. 

Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)

Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan.  Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda.  If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.

I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything.  Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.

mcgruff10

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

Holy cow!  I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject. 

Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)

Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan.  Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda.  If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.

I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything.  Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.

i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.  

my2hands

Drowned Out said:

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.

Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge?  Has he ignored any of mine?

JIM has found the Syrian government was responsible for several chemical attacks

Which is my point the last 30 pages or so lol

It’s been stated multiple times that they did so without following SOP for such an assessment….a sentiment echoed by weapons inspectors and American observers over and over….so their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.  Have you acknowledged the blame the US shoulders for all of this starting in the first place?  Even if Assad is guilty of chemical attacks…would they have happened without the US plotting his demise?

And yet,  they were confident enough to officially state the Syrian government was responsible for multiple chemical weapons attacks...I don't think they would do that lightly... you either think they were just flat wrong, by some level of incompetence I guess,  or that they knowingly lied about it,  as part of some larger conspiracy to remove Assad.... neither of which I see as realistic... I trust their report and dont see any reason for them to either lie, or make the official statement without being absolute certain,  that's not something you just throw around unless you're sure...

Now,  US blame for the current situation in Syria... we talking destabilization of the area due to Iraq? some lay the blame on the Bush Iraq Invasion (which I was completely against) ... some lay the blame on the Obama draw down (something I fully supported).... I would say there is no Obama draw down without the initial invasion and the disgusting shock & awe era... that entire era and administration are horrifying examples of American power gone wrong in difficult times... that shit was crazy... a dark period in my countries history, no question

And of course there is the issue of imperialism, global hegemony, regional hegemony, regime change, soft and hard support for opposition groups, clandestine activities, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and other assorted American hobbies.... that's a very long and complicated conversation that I'm not trying to have on a message board... but im sure it would be an interesting conversation

my2hands

mcgruff10 said:

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

Holy cow!  I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject. 

Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)

Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan.  Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda.  If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.

I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything.  Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.

i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.  

https://youtu.be/frVQsEG4Hz8

tbergs

my2hands said:

mcgruff10 said:

cincybearcat said:

brianlux said:

Holy cow!  I go a way for 8 hours and here's 42 more replies to this subject. 

Can some one either:
-Confirm, "Yes Brian, we all pretty much agree Syria is a clusterfuck", or
-Give me a synopsis in 25 words or less of what you all have learned about Syria, or
-Tell me to go pound sand (I'm good at doing that, lol!)

Same thing over and over, except now they've added a discussion about American in WW2 and the bombing of Japan.  Again, if you believe the US actions saved lives and ended the war then you are only reading American propaganda.  If you believe that Japan was going to surrender soon anyhow and America killed innocent people for no reason, then you are only reading anti-American propaganda.

I'm very confused, but this thread has lead me to understand that I shouldn't read anything.  Or if I do read it, don;t believe it.

i'm questioning my education and job after this thread lol.  

https://youtu.be/frVQsEG4Hz8

Too funny! This is exactly what I was thinking of after that comment.

brianlux

Well, I learned one thing here- Pearl Jam did a song called "Education".  How did I miss that one before?  Not on any album I know of.

As for Syria, I'm convinced little of that conflict makes any sense.  But hey, we've gotta toss those bombs somewhere, right?

Drowned Out

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

my2hands said:

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

I think claiming both McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria is an easy way to ignore that there is some merit to what @my2hands has been saying. I don't think McCarthyism or anti-Russian hysteria is why he has been saying it.

Which of his points have merit that I have yet to acknowledge?  Has he ignored any of mine?

JIM has found the Syrian government was responsible for several chemical attacks

Which is my point the last 30 pages or so lol

It’s been stated multiple times that they did so without following SOP for such an assessment….a sentiment echoed by weapons inspectors and American observers over and over….so their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.  Have you acknowledged the blame the US shoulders for all of this starting in the first place?  Even if Assad is guilty of chemical attacks…would they have happened without the US plotting his demise?

And yet,  they were confident enough to officially state the Syrian government was responsible for multiple chemical weapons attacks...I don't think they would do that lightly... you either think they were just flat wrong, by some level of incompetence I guess,  or that they knowingly lied about it,  as part of some larger conspiracy to remove Assad.... neither of which I see as realistic... I trust their report and dont see any reason for them to either lie, or make the official statement without being absolute certain,  that's not something you just throw around unless you're sure...

Now,  US blame for the current situation in Syria... we talking destabilization of the area due to Iraq? some lay the blame on the Bush Iraq Invasion (which I was completely against) ... some lay the blame on the Obama draw down (something I fully supported).... I would say there is no Obama draw down without the initial invasion and the disgusting shock & awe era... that entire era and administration are horrifying examples of American power gone wrong in difficult times... that shit was crazy... a dark period in my countries history, no question

And of course there is the issue of imperialism, global hegemony, regional hegemony, regime change, soft and hard support for opposition groups, clandestine activities, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and other assorted American hobbies.... that's a very long and complicated conversation that I'm not trying to have on a message board... but im sure it would be an interesting conversation

Well no wonder we aren’t getting anywhere...that’s the conversation I’ve been trying to have   I don’t think you can talk syria without touching on those issues.

my2hands

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

brianlux

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

Good question who really really knows?

dignin

brianlux said:

Drowned Out said:

Lost Dogs, brother.  

Ah, thank you!  I have the CD, must pull that one out today.

my2hands said:

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

Good question who really really knows?

See, that's just it. Unless you are on the ground witnessing it who is 100% certain what exactly happened. That is why you develop trusted sources and critical thinking skills, we aren't all knowing all seeing beings.

Some of us trust Russian funded sources and some of us trust Western funded sources.

I believe that Russia propaganda has for years been actively muddying the waters surrounding many world events with the soul purpose of confusion. Throw everything and the kitchen sink out there so nobody believes anything, you can't trust anyone and there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest that is exactly what they are doing. The alternative facts era. Look at Crimea and the 2016 US election as at least two examples. Also look at how Putin came to power and has held power in Russia as another example.

And sadly, judging by your comments and others here their strategy is working. 

Drowned Out

I keep seeing the words ‘russian funded’ in association with virtually any source that doesn’t align with western positions.  Am I missing proof of payment, or even allegations here?  Asking honestly.  Chussodovsky, Sarah Abdallah, Vanessa Beesley, Eva Bartlett and all of the sites that publish them...are they actually russian funded?  Who is funding Max Blumenthal and Robert Fisk?  
Big difference between ‘on the take’, and ‘relaying the other position’

my2hands

my2hands said:

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

One simple question........

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

One simple question........

patience young padawan. That is four questions, and they are about as far from simple as it gets.  
I've already addressed the basic question, but I will again shortly.

JimmyV

my2hands said:

my2hands said:

I have one very simple question....

if all of these chemical attacks have been western false flag attacks, or just completely faked, with the intention of justifying regime change, then why didn't it happen?

specifically going back to the Obama red line incident of 2013... if the goal was regime change, and these attacks have been faked/false flag attacks by the west to achieve that goal, then why didn't Obama and congress approve action to take Assad out? why hasn't it happened under Trump with the last two incidents?

or maybe, just maybe, Assad and his Russian bff actually used chemical weapons and have committed the atrocities they are accused of?  

One simple question........

My guess would be that even if that particular theory is true, regime change was never Obama's goal in 2013 and it isn't Trump's goal now. It is the goal of the so-called "deep state" and convincing a president to fully invade is taking time. Or something like that.