Syria

[Empire*Of*Media]

It's due to the history of the English people. It started off similarly to (old) German, but was heavily corrupted at the root level by the major players in English history, most notably the Normans and the Norse. As a result, it developed a pattern of absorbing foreign words at an unusually high rate, and has continually added in new words and grammatical rules from many other languages right up to the present day. As a result, English has some basic rules, but also an incredibly large number of exceptions that result from about a millennium of foreign influence. It is thus one of the most international languages in the world, in that it contains elements from many different cultures. Unfortunately, this makes it extremely counter-intuitive and confusing for people learning it as a second language. It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

yes your right ! but i again think German or anyother must have benn International 1st language !! now i could have conversation with you very easily!!!!! and your right again! the british shimed the way and USA asphalted it! im just surprised how those british imposed & Inflicted those poor Indians & Africans to forcibly learn that hard english!! its just too much unjustice!! but i can see The USA too is continuing that way too but in a more smoothy way, like for example, HOLLYWOOD !! The Great controled Culture Changer of makind!!

Hmm... I think a fair few people may disagree with the notion that Europe was rebuilt by the US army... You may have a case for Berlin (part of it anyway) but there's much more to Europe than that one city and I'd disagree with you on the idea in general...
The concept that America single-handedly saved Europe from the Nazis is really only perpetuated in American culture. If one were to make such black and white projections of history one would conclude that America AND Russia saved the rest of Europe, but I doubt that would get much traction in the US and I also think its more complicated than that.
This does raise an interesting point when considering Syria. What is the likely outcome of a larger organised force entering now, like UN or NATO? Who would they fight? What would be the legal framework for action at this point? Personally, I can't see any ethical or legal reasons to support any of the players in this conflict. And that may well be how it turns out... continue until no one is left standing...

Imperialists, They loved the war to be started (USA & BRITISH) to fulfill another of their important phases to create NEW WORLD ORDER not only in Europe but in the world and specially creating USA !! we see the transfering of supreme power from old Imperialist bitain to new Imperialist USA!! and why i said specially Israel?! because the next supreme power that must be transfered from USA to them, maybe its Israel when that time we have The Unite and One Money in The World and thats Electronic money that its distributor is MONDEX Smartacrds that is in all of advanced countries, when that BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!! (You Can Google, VERCHIP or Mondex Smartcards).

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!

[gedingradski]

...BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!!...

..not gonna touch that one...

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!

While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

[HopAlongBunny]

The West is probably just happy this is "Russia's baby". The veto blocks any Security Council sanctioned actions (one bullet dodged) and there is just no compelling reason for unilateral action.

With the divisions, Russia just might be on the right side policy-wise; back the existing regime and hope for a return to stability or prop them up long enough for everyone to get sick of killing each other.

I wish the Syrian people peace and prosperity; I just don't see how any external power can stop the bloodbath.

[Sir Moody]

..not gonna touch that one...



While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

all good reasons however there is another reason we haven't got involved - the Syrian Army isn't antiquated

Libya had horrifically out of date air defenses and thus we had pretty much air dominance once the pathetically small air force was crushed

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

[gedingradski]

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

Yes, excellent point. I doubt anyone wants to get too aquianted with modern Russian AA defense systems.

[Empire*Of*Media]

..not gonna touch that one...



While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

good proofs, actually i brought Qazzafi knew some secrets, i Quoted from an Arab jurnalist in Al Jazeera English, but while some of your proofs are right, but for many you just see the Apearances! of course im not Mossad to bring you the classified and top secrets of Nato EU UN & and imperialists like USA & Britain.
but it needs a little thinkink and researching about many things, they are all in a way of New World Order, you believe it or not, they are doing their work, but of course war in Syria has too much profits for USA & Nato & Israel!! how they sell their old fashioned guns!!(like the LORD movie!!) and of course to more weaken Islamic Republic of Iran, and then the raising of a SuperPower Israel!! so the New World Order will go much Further!! if they wanted to invade Syria they could! like Iraq & Afghanistan & etc they. they want to fix the problem slowly and undirectly. because they have taughted lesson from Iraqs War's Consequences. the fact is, when they comfortably think what has the most benefits for them to do, in that coursed land, the apart from men, children and women are suffering a beautiful hell that no one except Kurds suffered in history!!
in the end, they dont want freedom for people, they just see where & what has the most profits & Benefits!! yes!! its an Imperialistic Trait !!

[rvg]

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

[rvg]

I'm not entirely convinced that Empire, Truth, and Relism aren't all just the same troll, myself.

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

[Empire*Of*Media]

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

hey whats going on in here !?!?!? who's Total Relism ?!?!? please somebody explain for me !!

[rvg]

who's Total Relism ?!?!?

Some Turk.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

[rvg]

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.

Assad's finished, long term...

People have been saying this for a year and a half now.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.


Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.


It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.


People have been saying this for a year and a half now.


I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

You think Lbya doesn't have sectarian problems?

Are we forgetting the Christian the Jews?

Not to mention the African/Arabic issue?

Assad has been confirmed to being using Sarin - that's WMD territory we're in now.

You're taking a local, short-termist, perspective.

In the short term Assad may win, may hold on for another 5-10 years but in 20 years he will fall - what sort of country Syria will be when that happens is being decided now.

There's a good chance that in 10 years Libya will be similar to Turkey now, there's a good chance Syria will be like Somalia five years ago. You remember Solalia, the last Islamic country we tried to ignore.

[Pannonian]

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

Why does it go religious fundie?

Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".

If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.

We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.

The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...

It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.

[Pannonian]

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

Why does it go religious fundie?

Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".

If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.

We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.

The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...

It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.

Yeah, right.