Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

syrian crisis crossroads

oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
edited August 2013 in General Banter
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23822440.
well, it's finally happening, Assads regime has gone to far and a coalition of nations is about to step in. Could this possibly trigger more widespread use of sarin agent and other heinous activity? I am very seriously concerned right now, could see massive loss of life
.
«1345

Comments

  • :(
  • I have no idea why this posted in Buddhism, meant for general banter. More trouble w mobile
  • I didn't understand. Did rebels or the regime lead the chemical attacks?
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Regime, rebels don't have access to sarin. The regime has gassed civilian areas, men women children,
    There will be a US led strike in Syrian regime assets within a day or two.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Gentle Man Veteran
    edited August 2013
    US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry blame Assad regime, which has control of chemical weapons stockpiles, as of tonight's news.
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Yep they have to wait for UN inspectors to leave before strike, but it is imminent.
    (Maybe put this in members only)
  • What a moral dilemma? Should we allow a regime to tear into its own citizens? Or stay back and avoid war. Imho we should leave them to their own problems and make economic sanctions. That in mind I am one of the dullest tools in the tool shed relative to such questions.
  • Or stay back and avoid war. Imho we should leave them to their own problems and make economic sanctions. T
    Yea its already been tried. Basically there's no choice anymore; chemical weapons pose a threat to civilians, men women children as well as neighboring countries and beyond. Using them shows total disregard for anything remotely sane. There's just no choice anymore.
    I've been afraid to watch the videos of the attacks, but I hear they are quite disturbing. Everybody pray for the innocents. Nerve gas is no way to die
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Gentle Man Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Current talk is of a cruise missle strike on command bunkers and chem weapons launchers. No troops on ground in Syria from US. US has 4 cruise-missle equipped ships off Syria's coast now, and news mentioned one GB submarine also present there.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Jeffrey, although all of us will eventually have a position, you hit the nail on the head -- it's a dilemma and not a simple answer.

  • What is a GB sub?
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Gentle Man Veteran
    GB=Great Britian, in other words UK naval forces sub.
    Jeffrey
  • howhow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Gee.. I wonder what happened the last time folks started frothing at the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, now I remember, over 174,000 people in Iraq died while being saved from those imaginary weapons.

    All wars results in masses of folks dying in ugly, ugly, ugly ways.
    It often seems that the folks who rant about one method of killing being better than another, are just looking for a way to foster public acceptance for another war..
    poptart
  • @straight_man what scares me is that I don't know what Assad will have to lose after the strikes..to keep the rebels at bay he might unleash more sarin into civilian areas
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    Going to war in order to save people from similar problems has also been done (obviously) with mixed results. I honestly do not know what I think is the best course to take. It's easy to want to back someone else having to decide to be the ones to drop the bombs, and the people who actually do drop them. But what if you had to make the decision?
    It doesn't sound like the UN is going to make an outright decision, at least at this point, to jump in. Russia is an ally of Syria, China just doesn't want to get involved. That pretty much just leaves the US. Not much of a coalition at this point. I would imagine it would be an air attack, but if we don't get Assad? Then what? Another decade long hunt for another terrorist?

    Like I said, I don't know. On the one hand it doesn't seem like we can realize these things are going on and continue to turn a blind eye to it. But at the same time, is jumping into a war with yet another country truly in the best interest of the US? Of the Syrian people? Of the world? I don't know nearly enough about foreign relations to have a clue. But I do know that these things are rarely as simple as it seems to those of us on the outside.
    vinlynMaryAnne
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    m.youtube.com/watch?v=YaY_vySvq6w
    how said:

    Gee.. I wonder what happened the last time folks started frothing at the mouth about weapons of mass destruction.
    All wars results in masses of folks dying in ugly, ugly, ugly ways.
    It often seems that the folks who rant about one method of killing being better than another, are just looking for a way to foster public acceptance for another war..

    This look imaginary to you? Unbelievable
    http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

    warning video is graphic.
  • howhow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    Just as imaginary as believing tomahawk missiles/ cutter bombs/ cluster bombs etc. are some how a more forgiving compassionate way to kill. Now is the time to question everything before we once again drink the official kool aid.
    seeker242poptart
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    I agree with what you are saying, @how but Assad has killed upwards of 100,000 of his own citizens in the past 3 years. Like i said, I don't know what we should do. Do you? I'm not being a smartass, I'm honestly curious what (if anything) you think is the best option. If you, or your family was there, waiting to find out if you were going to die a horrible death that night when you went to sleep, would you be hoping like hell someone would come to help? I probably would. How can we help the people who need help without hurting the offenders at the same time?
    vinlyn
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    You know really its not about taking sides, its about preventing slaughter of innocents. Chemical weapons are used to unleash death and illness upon large areas.
    Karasti most US allies are very upset about this, especially France. This is not another Iraq, this is another Serbia-Herzegovina, another Sudan, another Rwanda.
    How many lives would have been saved in ww2 w immediate intervention. This stuff very serious, like I said,
    Pray
    Kundo
  • That's what I thought for the Iraq warS, @oceancaldera207. Maybe we should just let them go to it as harsh as that sounds. They can donate the billions of dollars to Haiti and then the Haitians won't have to eat dirt cookies as their snack. It's all relative.
    how
  • oceancaldera207oceancaldera207 Veteran
    edited August 2013
    hat's what I thought for the Iraq warS, @oceancaldera207. Maybe we should just let them go to it as harsh as that sounds. They
    Actually that's pretty much been the approach till now.
    Iraq was relatively stable, very ill advised. This situation is dire, there is potential for massive atrocity on either side.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    edited August 2013
    Yes, I know the leaders of the UK and France are upset. But their people are also calling on them to go through the proper channels just as here they are asking the President to go through Congress, first. So, that hardly means a strike is imminent.
    Serious, yes, absolutely. But on the flip side of the world coin, would it be better to invest our resources in helping people who CAN be helped without getting into a war? I'm not saying that is what I believe, just thinking aloud. $60 billion was spent to rebuild Iraq after it was destroyed in the war, and they still aren't necessarily better off than they were before. But that $60billion could have done a WHOLE lot of good in the world that would have required us to go to war, like to the UN food program and medical care and so on. The wars themselves cost over a trillion dollars. That could have fed the entire planet. I'm not saying the people in Syria aren't worth helping, aren't worth saving. Not at all. I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. But is another war the best way to spend resources when more people could be helped otherwise? It doesn't seem to me like bringing more death and destruction (and to more innocent people as collateral damage along the way) is the way to gain peace. You don't gain peace via violence, and I do truly believe that. If that was the case, there would already be peace because the world has been at war in some way or another for as long as people discovered other tribes.
  • To be honest with you guys, I personally believe that the US government and maybe other powers may have either supplied them with the weapons or caused the attacks themselves. Why? Well because going back around a decade ago it was outlined that the US was going to invade 7 countries in the middle East to keep the petrol dollar alive, they have nearly completed their task of invading 7 countries and in most of the invasions there was a false flag needed to go in. They are hell bent on keeping the dollar alive even though places like China and Russia have stated that an invasion Syria and Iran will not be tolerated, they are going to do it anyway.

  • Even more relevant

  • So, that hardly means a strike is imminent.
    well a strike is imminent, not coalition invasion. I agree avoid war at all costs, but sometimes use of force is necessary. Unfortunately.
    Any case, what will happen is, us/UK strikes will disable some Syrian military apparatus..from there it remains to be seen wether the rebels can turn the tide.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    But when you look at the big picture, it's much easier to see that the money spent on wars in the past 20 years could have saved far, far more people. Millions and millions of people. Yes, it is still sad that many would still have died. But the US doesn't necessarily have to intervene for problems to be sorted out. Why do we always have to be the super hero of the world? Save people through war but not other peaceable means? What if we took a chunk of our defense budget and put it to use for better things than destruction. When I was a kid, my dad used to tell me "When you run into a problem, there are always ways to solve it via destruction and construction. It's always better to construct. Destruction never helps solve problems." Are we really the good guy if we only save people via war when we have the means to save them without it?
  • howhow Veteran
    edited August 2013
    @Karasti
    I don't know what to do but I suspect it's time we stopped invading other countries to make them conform to our ideas of what's right. Why do we seem to just invade countries where we can likely gain strategically from that invasion.

    Mostly all I am asking for is for folks to question everything, especially when I fear politicians appear to be diverting attention away from more painful local issues that they obviously can't deal with.

    How many military interventions in the last five hundred years didn't
    just plant the seeds for another war?

    We seem to have caused so much destruction, supposedly trying to stop destruction.
    I just assume that those folks who gain from the destruction are not the folks that I'd want to be helping out.

    pommesetorangesriverflow
  • I really do have to shake my head at how blinded people STILL are, all of the evidence is up there in those 2 videos, linked to documents backing it up.

    > US wants to trigger a war with Syria and thus Iran
    > US helped supply these weapons to the rebels, not the state.
    > The rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons
    cptshrk
  • Tom, are you sure the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons?
  • Noam Chomsky pointed out that like every war had an interest of colonialism or imperialism.
  • Jeffrey said:

    Tom, are you sure the rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons?

    I am not sure no, but I believe it is them due to the evidence I have seen. Are any of you sure that it was the Syrian state that was using them?
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    how said:

    ...Why do we seem to just invade countries where we can likely gain strategically from that invasion.

    Mostly all I am asking for is for folks to question everything, especially when I fear politicians appear to be diverting attention away from more painful local issues that they obviously can't deal with.

    ...

    Well, it would be kinda stupid to invade countries where we couldn't gain strategically form that invasion.

    But yes, I agree, question everything.

    oceancaldera207
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited August 2013

    I really do have to shake my head at how blinded people STILL are, all of the evidence is up there in those 2 videos, linked to documents backing it up.

    > US wants to trigger a war with Syria and thus Iran
    > US helped supply these weapons to the rebels, not the state.
    > The rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons

    It would be nice if just once in a while you picked on some other country for its failings...like mother England. Then I might believe you're not just biased.

    MaryAnne
  • ThailandTomThailandTom Veteran
    edited August 2013
    vinlyn said:

    I really do have to shake my head at how blinded people STILL are, all of the evidence is up there in those 2 videos, linked to documents backing it up.

    > US wants to trigger a war with Syria and thus Iran
    > US helped supply these weapons to the rebels, not the state.
    > The rebels are the ones using the chemical weapons

    It would be nice if just once in a while you picked on some other country for its failings...like mother England. Then I might believe you're not just biased.

    I am not trying to pick on the US people here, England has many many issues that are causing people a lot of suffering there, but right now what is happening in the middle East and has been happening for some years now is terrible and could be leading to something tragic. To sit there and defend such an establishment IMO is to be either in denial, ignorant or downright stupid.

    I have nothing wrong with the vast majority of the American people, I have quite a lot of friends who are American, but the nation is lead by psychotic maniacs who are going to crazy extremes to keep their money and wealth.

    Why did the US invade Iraq? Hillary Clinton in an interview claimed that the 500,000 child deaths as a result of said invasion was worth the cost. Were there any weapons of mass destruction found? No. The only mass destruction was one created by the US armed forces. Yes Sadam had been killing his own people but there was no need for the US to do what it did. Remember I have a friend who has been living in London now for a nearly a decade with her family who fled Iraq because of what was happening, she was lucky enough her family are somewhat wealthy.

    Sorry I am not going to sit back and let things slide under the carpet like they have been for the past decade, mass murder, treason, war crimes, they have all been committed by the US government and other governments as well, and will continue to be committed. So instead of pointing out that I am putting forward my opinion about a system put in place, Vinlyn, actually put forward a decent excuse for what has been happening.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    When you say that, "the nation is lead by psychotic maniacs", you lose all credibility with me on the topic. Far too much hyperbole.
    Kundo
  • vinlyn said:

    When you say that, "the nation is lead by psychotic maniacs", you lose all credibility with me on the topic. Far too much hyperbole.

    Do you think I refer to Obama or any of his ministers? No I did not, there are powers above all of that which are focused on one thing and do not care what it takes to keep that wheel turning.

    In all honesty I would not expect to have your backing on this as I know how much you still latch on to a notion which has slowly but surly changed over time. Anyway I have said my piece on this, people will hold on to their opinions as that is human nature so it is what it is.
  • Well this is what we pretty much know, independent observations have confirmed that has been a sarin attack, Assad has sarin, and most telling,, Assad continued to shell the areas in question for days after the attack. If the regime was innocent, why not immediately allow in UN observers, who were already in Damascus. Looks like smoking gun to me..the only question is why? Especially when it was sure to bring the ire of the world upon them.
    vinlyn
  • robotrobot Veteran
    karasti said:

    But when you look at the big picture, it's much easier to see that the money spent on wars in the past 20 years could have saved far, far more people. Millions and millions of people. Yes, it is still sad that many would still have died. But the US doesn't necessarily have to intervene for problems to be sorted out. Why do we always have to be the super hero of the world? Save people through war but not other peaceable means? What if we took a chunk of our defense budget and put it to use for better things than destruction. When I was a kid, my dad used to tell me "When you run into a problem, there are always ways to solve it via destruction and construction. It's always better to construct. Destruction never helps solve problems." Are we really the good guy if we only save people via war when we have the means to save them without it?



    The reason is that US companies are in the business of making weapons, not making things for peacefull purposes. War saves millions of people from poverty. Millions of Americans.
    The recent debate about aid to the government of Egypt has illustrated the issue once again.
    The aid is not cash but weapons, aircraft, parts and training and such. The contracts have already been signed with the weapons manufacturers and aircraft manufacturers. The employees have been hired. If the aid is discontinued Americans get laid off.
    There is no infrastructure for manufacturing peace making products on the scale necessary to keep the economy rolling.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013

    Well this is what we pretty much know, independent observations have confirmed that has been a sarin attack, Assad has sarin, and most telling,, Assad continued to shell the areas in question for days after the attack. If the regime was innocent, why not immediately allow in UN observers, who were already in Damascus. Looks like smoking gun to me..the only question is why? Especially when it was sure to bring the ire of the world upon them.

    So contrary to everyone else Assad is guilty until proven innocent? Hmm?

    Allowing in UN observers into a hot zone is maybe not an option? Maybe letting them in would put them at risk of getting killed? And how would that look internationally for Assad?

    Damned if he does damned if he dont?

    I do not know Assad nor the Rebells. So I can not speek for any of them. But I like seeing reality as it is as far as possible.

    I refuse to believe that the path to peace is through yet another war. I also refuse to be led by the Media War into believing things without knowing.

    /Victor
    pommesetorangesCitta
  • So contrary to everyone else Assad is guilty until proven innocent? Hmm?

    Yeah if 'everyone else' is every wack job ultra paranoid blogger who gives great talking points for coffee shop warriors like you, trying to impress your gf with ultra polarized world views and snappy answers.

    Wow this is really unbelievable. Trendy is truth eh bro? Totally detatched from reality. Why don't you guys start looking to accredited international journalists instead of the reddit sphere.. yea YouTube comment trolls may not be as reliable as the diplomatic leaders of most civilized nations, humanitarian workers on the ground, doctors without borders, civilian eyewitnesses, etc etc

    This will be my last post here, mods please delete my account. I have found it impossible to have anything remotely close to a rational polite discussion around here for quite some time. And as you can see I've found my breaking point. Its become emotionally very taxing dealing with constant assault by people who read two lines of what I write and then invent an opinion for me. As clearly evidenced by Victorious last post , no one reads what I say or gets the tone of what I'm saying here at all. Goodbye everybody. I tried, I really did.

    If you want to do one last thing for me, pray for those civilians over there, like I said 3 fucking times already and no one says anything about that but you'll troll me til the sun comes up on some foreign policy shit that barely has any relevance. Thanks a lot guys.
  • KundoKundo Sydney, Australia Veteran
    edited August 2013
    how said:

    Gee.. I wonder what happened the last time folks started frothing at the mouth about weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, now I remember, over 174,000 people in Iraq died while being saved from those imaginary weapons.

    All wars results in masses of folks dying in ugly, ugly, ugly ways.
    It often seems that the folks who rant about one method of killing being better than another, are just looking for a way to foster public acceptance for another war..

    The only problem is the WMD's are not imaginary this time. And I am vehemently against starting a war that will only escalate into total chaos for everyone.
  • as someone engaged in total warfare
    with a pig, snake and bird . . . not to mention the fish
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_(Buddhism)
    I like a good internal jihad as well as the next Sohei and their chant of
    'Hail to the Amida Buddha!' (Namu Amida Butsu).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sōhei

    As you know, we have a battle on our hands. I think the important thing is to get riled up, forget any good council, long term human evolution and come up with a good kamikaze strategy . . .
    . . . or maybe not . . .

    Just be kind . . . except to the enemy, other, Islamists, dictators, Americans, Taoists, armchair generals, the other team, heretic Buddhists, bankers, militarists, imperialists, conspirators, vested interests, stupid people who dare to disagree with us, etc etc . . .

    Did I get it all wrong? Again?

    xxx hugs and kisses xxx
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited August 2013

    Well this is what we pretty much know, independent observations have confirmed that has been a sarin attack, Assad has sarin, and most telling,, Assad continued to shell the areas in question for days after the attack. If the regime was innocent, why not immediately allow in UN observers, who were already in Damascus. Looks like smoking gun to me..the only question is why? Especially when it was sure to bring the ire of the world upon them.

    So contrary to everyone else Assad is guilty until proven innocent? Hmm?

    Allowing in UN observers into a hot zone is maybe not an option? Maybe letting them in would put them at risk of getting killed? And how would that look internationally for Assad?

    Damned if he does damned if he dont?

    I do not know Assad nor the Rebells. So I can not speek for any of them. But I like seeing reality as it is as far as possible.

    I refuse to believe that the path to peace is through yet another war. I also refuse to be led by the Media War into believing things without knowing.

    /Victor
    Sometimes on the human scale of things there can be no short term victory for the majority.
    All of the evidence points to the rebels being no more likely to prove a force for good than Assad should they take power. They are a portal for Al-Qaeda.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Wheels within wheels within wheels....
    And our poor dumb politicos are stumbling about with a mixture of motives rattling their confused sabres.
  • 18 + video, somewhat disturbing.

    And the image is a screencap of a Syrian citizens opinion

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aa9_1377105110
  • CittaCitta Veteran

    So, that hardly means a strike is imminent.
    well a strike is imminent, not coalition invasion. I agree avoid war at all costs, but sometimes use of force is necessary. Unfortunately.
    Any case, what will happen is, us/UK strikes will disable some Syrian military apparatus..from there it remains to be seen wether the rebels can turn the tide.

    And if they do the people of Syria will exchange secular despotism for Islamic despotism.
    Poor people.
    We , the west, never learn.
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    @ThailandTom I've seen far too many conspiracy theories on youtube already. I stopped wasting my time with them. That doesn't mean I blindly trust the media, whether our own or any other country's. But there are several videos out there that also show how very easy it is to fake conspiracy theory videos, such as all the ones that came out about the Boston bombing. Not everything is a conspiracy. I absolutely believe our government does things that they shouldn't be doing in order to protect it's own interests. But I'm not going to waste time on every internet blogger who likes attention and thinks they have something to say. There are people out there who still believe the world is flat and that the world leaders convince us it's round for their own reasons. If you listen to their arguments, they even start to make sense. That's how conspiracy theories work. It doesn't make them true.

    @how I tend to agree, however if the leader of a country IS using sarin gas on his own citizens, how can anyone argue that that *isn't* wrong? It's certainly not right. I don't think the US should just be going in because we decided everyone needs the tidy democracy we have, (lol) and to meet our needs, of course. And I'm not saying I think we should go into Syria (or just from air) either. I'm just saying that if we were ever in the same position we might want someone to help.
    vinlynMaryAnne
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited August 2013
    One thing I learned by following the LTTE conflict on Sri Lanka is that which ever side that receives most Media sympathy at the moment, is the side with the upper hand for now.

    In the endgame just before the LTTE was cornered and crushed no or few pro LTTE stories were broadcasted at all. It then became evident that it was over even if the last shell had not fallen yet.

    So these kind of videos and pictures and articles will continue being broadcasted, the latest view from one side toppoling the last view from the other side endlessly.

    This is the Media War. The best u can do is to try to read between the lines and question all and everything.

    /Victor

    PS
    Everytime one sees these kind of pictures from any part of the world. The heart bleeds.

    Does anybody know how to help? Is there any charity/help organisation at least to send funds to?
    DS
  • ZaylZayl Veteran
    I'm of a mind with @How. It's not our problem. I say we should sit back and let other countries just kill themselves off. That seems like a much more economical option as well as one carrying more moral weight. I'm not even being sarcastic here, I am entirely serious. The fact that we're stepping into so many countries' business when our economy steps ever closer to collapsing means we have ulterior motives in those countries. It's a clear pattern.

    I'd rather just sit back, focus on my own nation, and let other nations sort out their own problems. If intervention is needed 100% no bullshit, then there are plenty of other countries out there with the means to do so. The U.S. does not need to lead every fight. Let's focus on fixing our own problems, on our own soil, rather than sending troops and dropping bombs overseas. I'd like to see some of my friends again too, the ones who joined the military.
    MaryAnneJeffreyKundo
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.