U.S pentagon considering arming rebels and even a military strike on Syria.

[DearSummer]

Russia changes tack on Syrian intervention
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2336257/

As the carnage in Syria worsened, Russia signaled a new-found willingness Monday to consider international intervention while the world’s nations planned a United Nations vote aimed at exposing the inaction of the great powers.

Syrian guns pounded anti-government strongholds in the opposition stronghold of Homs and the Arab League called for UN blue helmets to “to supervise implementation of a cease-fire.”

In Moscow, the shift indicated Russia was moving from defending Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, its primary Arab ally, to managing a transition.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia, “together with other permanent members of the UN Security Council, (is) ready to promote the dialogue and an agreement.”

After twice vetoing Security Council resolutions condemning the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protestors by forces loyal to Mr. Assad, Russia may be abandoning its absolute defence of the Syrian regime.

Looks like Russia is finally changing their tune...

[Hitman21]

The killing there was mostly due to horse and camel-riding militias with small arms, and even then mostly down to disease. It's not even remotely comparable to what's happening in Syria, even though the total deaths are similarly bad.

Does it really matter what type of weapons were used, its still killing. If you actually care about the Syrian people why are you supporting American intervention which will make things even worse for them.

[NorthYorker]

Fascinating... You don't like Wiki as a source why do you use it?

Wiki can serve as a source of referenced info, but mostly everything related to political topics in WP which is unsourced can be safely discounted as propaganda. And then you need to distinguish between sourced info and sourced opinion. Sourced info from WP that Hamas had been started as MB's local chapter is relevant. Sourced opinion that Syrian MB is the best thing since Wonderbread might or might not be relevant. Opinion sourced to a side in civil war is almost always not impartial. Got it?

And you completely ignored the accompanying arguments which I wrote in support of the link/source I provided. You know, the historical/political context stuff.

Sir yes sir!

Was that too difficult to grasp?

No, it was irrelevant. Since your own credibility (as well as mine) is zero, your words without independent proof don't worth electrons wasted on showing them on-screen. I concentrated on looking at any independent support for your writings and found one. A report by sworn enemies of current regime.

your only argument so far, which you have been completely unable to support7, has been "but those pesky MB Islamists and their "offshoots" are all the same!"

I provided more documentary evidence for this single statement than you for all your hot air. I have no doubts that you consider your air being more serious support for your air than research by recognized observers of the region.

How much? What % of Hamas funds do they normally contribute?

I don't care. The very fact of funding proves that there is not much division between Brotherhood in Egypt and Palestine, regardless of volume of hot air you breathing out trying to prove otherwise.

a tad hyperbolic and overly dramatic aren't we?

Sorry, I don't know other definition for an act of calling a someone a liar when proof of statement had been provided before (WP refers to SMH article you're cringy about). You tried to slander, and now you are badmouthing, with all your oh-so-smart (so you probably think) quips, which are nothing but more hot air. Hot air, hot air, hot air, and more hot air today to support hot air of yesterday.

Russia changes tack on Syrian intervention
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2336257/
Looks like Russia is finally changing their tune...

Isn't it funny? "resolutions condemning the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protestors by forces loyal" proposed by Saudi Arabia... I truly enjoyed this joke...

[JustBob]

Well that's just brilliant... Ignore everything you don't like under the guise of "bad source" and/or "irrelevance" and stick to your "they are all the same!" claim based on the serious research of those who merely pointed out that Hamas was an "offshoot of" the MB (that's quite the revelation!) and "some funding" (at least you backtracked on your "bankroll" claim...) . You do realize that the entire Arab world tends to view politics through the prism of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict now don't you? And that support for the Palestinian cause is not merely the domain of Islamic fundamentalists?

"Offshoot of" and "some funding" doesn't support or prove squat. You made a claim, the burden of proof is still on you.

Let me know when you are actually interested in intelligent debate, and not simply being one of those "I have to be right on the internet" types...

[Ticco]

I think it's a little more complex than merely believing that "democracy" aka the right to vote for your government will solve a nation's problems.

If the country is plagued with corruption, various concentrated spheres of power amongst various groups, illiteracy, poverty, failing economy etc then democracy will simply fall apart.

The people can do all the voting they want, but just because a party is "elected" doesn't mean they'll be able to change things overnight or miraculously bring posterity and freedom to the people. Especially if they have a legislative structure such as ours (works for us, but we have a very different political, social, and economic infrastructure), how can they possibly get anything accomplished? If there is still fighting between factions, corruption etc things will never change.

History has shown that if a country wants democracy and freedom - the infrastructure has to be in place for it. Usually, there is a period of development led by a single authoritarian government that sets the conditions in place for a natural transition to a liberal democracy.

I don't know all the details about the situation in Syria, but from what I gather - the current regime is oppressive and corrupt (though I have been told they have been sympathetic to the Christian minority in the country as well). Fair enough, the people want them out. But who to replace them with? The Muslim Brotherhood. Will they bring true democracy to the Syrian people? (which is more than just the right to vote, at least to me).

People seem to think that the people in these non-democractic countries in the middle east live identical lives to ours with a flourishing first world economy, same academic institutions, same rule of law, same literacy rates, same interest in western social norms and hollywood culture, etc and all they need is the freedom to vote and this will suddenly bring their quality of life up to our standards...

If it were only that simple, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that their problems are much more complex than that and furthermore, their culture and history very different from ours.

[Metagame]

Looks like Russia is finally changing their tune...

Must be great news for you warmongering neo-cons, huh? That a sovereign government is going to be attacked and the country left as a wasteland of lawlessness, just like Iraq today?

[Tornado F2]

I think it's a little more complex than merely believing that "democracy" aka the right to vote for your government will solve a nation's problems.

It is far more complex than that. After all, many evil tyrannical regimes took power in ostensibly "fair" elections. But stopping the current artillery bombardment of civilian neighbourhoods in Syria would be a great first step, democracy or not.

[hagbard]

If you people really want to know what's going on, read the Project for a New American Century document of 1997. The plan is to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Libya and Iran. Its all in black in white. The rest is window dressing.

[Tornado F2]

If you people really want to know what's going on, read the Project for a New American Century document of 1997. The plan is to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Libya and Iran. Its all in black in white. The rest is window dressing.

A link would help, if you really expect people to look at it.

Anyway, if we're supposed to take it as being something official, it's not exactly "going to plan" so far, is it? Did they have no plans on what to do AFTER invading? Interesting how they've forgotten the US's traditional Communist irritants, Cuba and N. Korea. In fact since 1997 they've actually allowed Cuba's influence in the Caribbean to grow, (see Venezuela), at a time when it should have been so easy to bring the Castro regime to an end. They must be afraid of all those affordable Cuban doctors moving north and upsetting the pro-rich status quo in the US, where the rich get unbelievable treatment, while the poor are left to die. Come to think of it, if Castro wants to win, that's exactly what he should do. Send in the doctors, politicise the US poor, and provoke a new US revolution from the inside. I'm sure Iran will happily bankroll the plan. And now, with so many Americans slipping into poverty, would be the perfect time to do it.

Ironically enough, if that actually did happen, it would be great for most American people too. It's time to stop the slide back into the late 1800s, where the rich own everything and the working people are just disposable ants. (It's those conditions that led to the growth of Socialism). With today's automation, even those ants are no longer needed. Watch out folks!

[hagbard]

Meanwhile, there's Iran. Here's an excellent article by Glenn Greewald on how its the media banging the war drum this time (not surprised, btw):

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_m...ngleton/?miaou

Great quote that really sums up the mindset of the sheeple:

I used to find somewhat baffling this bizarre aspect of American public opinion: time and again, Americans support whatever new war of aggression their government proposes, then come to regret that support and decide the war was a “mistake,” only to demonstrate that they learned no lessons from their “mistake” by eagerly supporting whatever the next proposed war is. Thus did the widespread belief that Vietnam was a “mistake” have no impact on their support for the attack on Iraq, and now — with some polls showing Americans, before their government even proposes it, preliminarily willing to cheer on an attack on Iran — it is clear they have learned nothing from their acknowledged “mistake” in supporting the attack on Iraq. Most Americans continue with this strange mindset: we realize we were wrong to support those past wars you gave us, but we stand ready and eager to support this next one!

The plan I spoke about earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean...ring_the_Realm

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century

[sylpherware]

Great quote that really sums up the mindset of the sheeple:

Okay, I admit, I was lying in wait for someone to mention "sheeple" ever since the comic came out

[hagbard]

Glenn Greenwald follows up on the last article:

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Now lets just wait for a false flag attack somewhere in the US to "justify" attacking both Iran and Syria. Sheeple is the correct word for the people, evil is the word for those promoting aggression on these countries.

[Tornado F2]

Meanwhile, there's Iran. Here's an excellent article by Glenn Greewald on how its the media banging the war drum this time (not surprised, btw):

Great quote that really sums up the mindset of the sheeple:

The reason why it's unfortunate that the US assumed the role of "leader of the free world": They still, after all these years, have extremely little knowledge of world history, and even basic geography. They never learn anything about a country until they're already at war with it. By then it's usually too late. Craziest thing of all - any enemy that ultimately admits defeat gets rewarded with "new best friend" treatment, and generous funding to rebuild their economy. Countries that refuse to surrender to US will - like Cuba - get the cold shoulder.

[hagbard]

[hagbard]