BS: Syria: the new nightmare?

Subject: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:21 PM

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has been told by the US, France, UK and NATO that the use of chemical weapons on its people would result in severe consequences, diplomatic speak for "you will be bombed to shit and invaded".

"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."

So my question is, why is Sarin gas being prepared for use in Syria?

I guess my other question is, "Has the world gone nuts?"

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:33 PM

It kind of seems that way.

How do we know that anything we're being told by our mass media is true anyway? I remember when they were telling us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Why? So we would agree to an illegal invasion of Iraq.

If an invasion of Syria is in the works, they'll tell us anything that appears to justify it...and they won't tell us about anything that would argue the other way.

Not saying the reports about Sarin gas aren't true...I'm just saying they may or may not be true, and we have no way of knowing for sure about that.

The situation just keeps getting more and more dangerous. What worries me the most is that it may reach a point where Russia decides to intervene in the Middle East in order to protect their own interests there...and that could mean a 3rd World War.

If that happens, Bruce, we will probably both check out of this existence a little sooner than we'd figured on doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:49 PM

Well, I tend not to believe much of what's in the media, but I doubt NATO would be lied to by US intelligence services because the game is never played that way. I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country. That aside, because I have no way to prove the contention, the remark that worries me most is '"The Foreign Ministry in Damascus said it would never use such weapons against Syrians."'

Also, war in Syria would be a very hard sell in the USA. Canada has asked both Russia and China to exert whatever influence they have with Syria to ensure chemical weapons are not used. In the parlance, it's one damned thing after another.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:53 PM

I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country.

That is what was observed, and I reported here, and I was scoffed at. Be careful, bruce- you may get the "bb" treatment if you go against the "Proper" viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 04:55 PM

From Al Jazeera

The Syrian foreign ministry has repeatedly denied that it would consider using chemical weapons against Syrians, though it has not ruled out their use in case of foreign military intervention.

Foreign military analysts say that Syria has the capability to produce chemical agents such as mustard gas and sarin, and that it could also produce VX nerve gas.

Mark Fitzpatrick, an expert on chemical weapons at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that it was unclear if Syria was actually preparing to use such weapons, but that precautions had to be taken.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

9... "I am of the opinion that Iraq had the weapons but did move them to Syria before the 'Coalition of the Willing' invaded Hussein's country."

I have been saying that since I saw Blair and Quackdaffy shaking hands and smiling. I thoght it was obvious the wepons went to Syria and a good portion of them went to Egypt and Libya as well. It was obvious to me what happened and I posted often about it. And I was shit upon. Welcome!

Ya see what happened in Egypt just now? Calling it "The Second Revolution"? Buy a tank of gas... or two. Them cruise missiles ain't a dime a dozen. And the new planes are ready. The Nighthawk is a pussy now.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: gnu
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 05:04 PM

Crossposted there. Same thrust.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 06:47 PM

More than 40,000 killed in Syria, 158 killed in Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:17 PM

"Bashar al-Assad has lost all hope of victory or escape according to Russian diplomats who met with the Syrian president two weeks ago.

Government forces have launched a counteroffensive to stem rebel gains around the capital as the opposition lays siege to the Damascus International Airport and closes in on Assad.

"[Assad's] mood is that he will be killed anyway," Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told The New York Times.

"If he will try to go, to leave, to exit, he will be killed by his own people [the minority Alawite sect]," Mr. Lukyanov added. "If he stays, he will be killed by his opponents. He is in a trap. It is not about Russia or anybody else. It is about his physical survival."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:43 PM

Those who hoped for a Syrian spring and got one had no idea what they were wishing for. All they could see, as with Iraq, was a Bad Guy who needed to be toppled. They might have paused to consider that governance in some of those countries created in haste, in the aftermath of WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is close to impossible. That is true of Syria in particular, where coups were staged almost on a weekly basis until the present Assad's dad got a grip.

And hard as it is for us to grasp, democracy might not be the answer. Jordan was gifted to the Saudi Hashemites after WW2 and that dynasty has ruled ever since. By western standards that's crazy, yet Jordan remains an oasis of stability in the world's most turbulent region. Face it, what works and what doesn't is a matter of chance. Ideology doesn't come into it.

I guess nothing will stop the west lecturing about chemical weapons, human rights, etc, but surely it has no right to interfere. Chemical weapons may be out of fashion now, but the US was happy to target Vietnamese civilians with napalm. The UK bemoaned ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, but virtually caused it - and on a many times greater scale - in the partitioning of the Indian sub-continent. And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons? Sometimes hypocrisy in the west just beggars belief.

Tonight a US senator (Democrat) on BBC TV defended the renditioning of illegal combatants to be tortured, provided only that laws can be recodified to make the processes transparent. Tomorrow the same guy will probably be complaining about human rights in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

Guys, the kind of "weapons of mass destruction" that were being strongly implied to the public in 2003 in both the USA and the UK in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq were not little stuff like nerve gas or chemical weapons. The threat that was being implied very strongly by both Blair and Bush was that Saddam had nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them...either already extant...or on the way very shortly. I think it's quite clear that that was not true. It was a fabricated scare tactic, and it was used to panic people into supporting the invasion. Saddam posed no real existential threat to the West or to Israel at that time. His military had been very seriously degraded since the earlier Gulf War, and even in that war he had proved capable of nothing more than throwing some inaccurate, conventionally-armed Scud missiles at Israel.

As for Assad, he is doing exactly what the leader of any nation would do if placed in the same desperate situation. He's fighting for his and his government's survival against both local rebels and a foreign-backed and supplied insurgency that is getting much help in both materiel and manpower from outside Syria. Many of the fighters who were used to topple Qaddafi have been sent into Syria.

This doesn't Assad a "nice guy", and I'm not saying he is a nice guy, necessarily...but what he is doing is simply normal survival tactics for any government put in the same circumstances. He'll fight until he wins or until he goes down. If Netanyahu or the UK's Cameron or Egypt's Mursi or Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin or any other leader were in the same desperate position, fighting for their very survival, they'd do the same thing, and they'd all use ANY weapons they had at their disposal...if it seemed necessary in order to survive.

That's reality. You can demonize Assad all you want for fighting for the survival of himself and his administration, but anyone else in his position would do the very same thing.

And when...and if...he's gone, you won't see one iota of improvement in Syria. It will get worse. Assad's independent secular government will be replaced by an Islamic government, in all probability, a government that is under the thumb of the western alliance, and Syrians will be worse off than they were before, pretty much like what has happened in Lybia.

But the USA will have eliminated one more independent secular regional power, and will have cleared the way to an eventual attack on the main final objective: Iran, and the Israelis will be absolutely delighted.

As for the Russians, they will be getting ready for Armageddon. This is some serious shit here, and it's NOT about establishing democracy or ending dictatorships in foreign lands. It's a long term and major war with global objectives. The eventual and inevitable opponents in that war, I think, are going to be Russia and China...versus the western alliance. Assad's Syria is just one more pawn, bishop, or knight on the big chessboard...same as Israel.

The trouble is, though, you can win a chessgame without killing both players. I don't think this game can be concluded without mutually ruining just about everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 07:49 PM

"And what gives the US, UK, France and Israel the right to deny Iran nuclear weapons?"

Doh

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:16 PM

There are 3 notable non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact. India, Pakistan, and Israel. They dodged the issue by never signing on at all. They all have nukes now. Israel has a really large number of nukes, but has never officially admitted to it, yet everyone knows they have those weapons.

North Korea acceded to the NNPP, but later violated the terms by building and testing at least 2 nukes. THEY are in violation of the Pact, Iran isn't.

This puts Israel, as usual, in a totally unique situation in the world. The world rules that apply to everyone else apparently do not apply to Israel. They have not been penalized or criticized for building many nukes outside of the NNPP. They have not been sanctioned for doing it. No one else is in such a position. They are given carte blanche to do what no one else can do...without being ostracized for it.

Strange, isn't it?

In any case, Iran has NOT been denied the right to generate hydroelectric power with nuclear power plants. They have that legal right, they started on it when the Shah was still in power, and they have said all along that that is all they are doing. Iran does not object to being denied the right to build nuclear weapons, because they have never asked for such a right. They have asked to be left alone to use their nuclear power to generate electricity. They are NOT in violation of the NNPP.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:23 PM

North Korea is no longer in the NNPP. They withdrew about a decade ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: pdq
Date: 04 Dec 12 - 08:49 PM

"...In any case, Iran has NOT been denied the right to generate hydroelectric power with nuclear power plants." ~ Little Hawk

I find that line pretty dam funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:24 PM

"This puts Israel, as usual, in a totally unique situation in the world. The world rules that apply to everyone else apparently do not apply to Israel. They have not been penalized or criticized for building many nukes outside of the NNPP. They have not been sanctioned for doing it. No one else is in such a position. They are given carte blanche to do what no one else can do...without being ostracized for it.

Strange, isn't it?
"


LH, you are ignorant of the facts.

Israel has NOT signed the treaty, therefore is not bound by it- UNLIKE IRAQ

IF Israel HAD signed the treaty, they would have been one of the Nuclear powers like the US and USSR- They had developed their weapons BEFORE the treaty was even proposed. That alone puts them in a different class than Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:27 PM

"the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology "

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 12:42 PM

What Peter said.........we have lost the plot regarding foreign policy. We now have govt by mass media...the xfactor generation....god help us!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:00 PM

Let me rephrase, on the off-chance that even a smart-ass like bobad might understand the hypocrisy. What gives signatory countries that ignore the NPT and another that has never signed it the right to lecture Iran on its NPT obligations?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 06:09 PM

Iran is a self proclaimed existential threat to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:10 PM

Not until it has an effective nuclear capability. Which for the sake of stability in the region I hope will be soon. ((A neat change of ground though. bobad.)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 07:15 PM

It will never have a nuclear capability, or at least not for long.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: michaelr
Date: 05 Dec 12 - 10:43 PM

I thought this thread was about Syria?

Yahoo news headline tonight: Syria has loaded chemical weapons into bombs, awaits final order from Assad.

Fuck.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 12:55 AM

All the obfuscatory stuff aside, there is a major problem with regard to the use of chemical weapons. Countries that don't have chemical weapons but do have nuclear weapons will respond to a WMD attack with their own WMD attack. The political posturing is impressive, but too many people here are missing that point. This is not some he said/she said scenario. It is a clear and present danger. The usuals have brought Israel into the argument when in fact it has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with an Iran/Syria agreement dating back to 2006. Assad and his military will face consequences for their actions if they use the gas on their own people, something conveyed to Assad's government by many concerned countries and both NATO and the UN. There are two threads about to drop off the board wherein you can blame Israel for everything or anything that grinds your nuts; this isn't one of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:26 AM

Nuke the bastards.
=(:-( D)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 03:45 AM

Assad says not on Syrians, but he also claims the rebels are foreign, and he might think hitting Israel would gain him support.

I find it extraordinary that intelligent people look forward with hope to Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Not just Israel, but every Arab country has reason to fear it and arm themselves accordingly.
Happy days.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:09 AM

Should we eliminate all nuclear weapons from humanity?
I think so. They're only good for killing people.
That's immoral.
=(:-( 0)

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 06:55 AM

Atomic weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons: none of them are good for humanity. Now we know our ABCs, won't you sing along with me!

####################

"Iran has confirmed for the first time that forces from its revolutionary guards corps (IRGC) are in Syria helping Bashar al-Assad's government crush rebels, and warned that it would get involved militarily if its Arab ally came under attack."

That was reported in mid September of this year by http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/16/iran-middleeast .

As the relative worth of Iran's rial drops, so too does its economic support of Syria's money. Taking three billion dollars a year as a low figure, and with Iran's oil going to China and Russia at bargain-basement prices, Iran will not be able to continue its fiscal support of Syria's pound at the present level, a level that has been dropping for months. If Assad does implement a "What the hell, I have nothing to lose so I'll start taking people with me" line, we could be watching the beginning of a chemical/nuclear war, and whether that particular genie could be put back in the bottle is anyone's guess.

Weapons (missiles) that Israeli intelligence assumed were headed to Sudan from Iran may not be destined for end-use by Gaza, but rather end-use by Syria. Patriot missiles are going to Turkey from other NATO partners and Syria decries that.

IMO, the lower right-hand corner in all this is a horribly complex balancing act with all too real consequences for millions of people. If you believe in a higher power, pray to it now. If you don't believe in a higher power, pray anyway, just in case you're wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:15 AM

; it has I'm not sure that 999's ranting hysteria is the path to peace and tranquility in this troubled world.

As Little Hawk said so cogently, Bashar's major crime has been to defend his regime; a regime that was harsh and brutal by western standards but one which did for some years continue the stability achieved by his father.

His father, it might be argued, was far more brutal. Indeed Hafez al-Assad was responsible for the region's biggest massacre in modern times, one that by most estimates comfortably eclipsed the one achieved by Saddam at Halabja. Yet it was Assad who forced through equal rights for women, in the face of fanatical Sunni opposition. He even overturned a decree barring women from the presidency, though the Muslim Brotherhood together with other Islamic factions eventually succeeded in rescinding that initiative.

The west never for a moment considered intervening on behalf of the many thousands of victims at Hama, any more than they did on behalf of the victims at Halabja. But of course many years later Halabja was eagerly cited, as a justification for the mission creep whereby regime change became a legitimate objective in the Iraq war.

In all likelihood, any military intervention in Syria would be as catastrophic as that in Iraq, which has resulted in a hundred times more deaths than those inflicted by Saddam.

I fear that western attitudes, whereby a corrupt tyrant like Mobutu is to be funded and cherished while the Saddams and Bashars are demonised - and which can lead ultimately to 999-type hysterics - are dictated by little more than what is fashionable at the time.

Keith, I expect I'm wasting my time, as in your simplistic mind no argument could ever have two sides, but nevertheless I suggest you try a little bit of reading:

Iran and the bomb: a fabricated threat

The Waltz article itself, under discussion at that link, cannot be reached without going through a pay wall, as far as I can see.(It's on a website I access through someone else's account.} That's a pity: it has caused a little stir in academia and even caught the attention of a few politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:44 AM

"******'s major crime has been to defend his regime; a regime that was harsh and brutal by western standards but one which did for some years continue the stability achieved by his father."

Sounds like you're talking about the Shah of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 10:50 AM

The IAEA contradicts Waltz re. weaponization in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:37 AM

Peter, thank you for that gratuitously insulting Keith, I expect I'm wasting my time, as in your simplistic mind no argument could ever have two sides, but nevertheless I suggest you try a little bit of reading:

Like all of us I do have a position on some issues, but it is the likes of Jim and Don who get so cross when an opposing view is presented.
I am quite aware of those arguments that Iran's bomb is nothing to worry about and they are not making one anyway.
I just do not happen to believe that.

Last time I discussed this on Mudcat, Jim Carroll was quite frenzied in demanding that NATO troops should intervene in Syria against Assad's forces.
Any change Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 11:44 AM

You can't arrest someone for what they might do.
=(:-( ))

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:04 PM

I am quite aware of those arguments that Iran's bomb is nothing to worry about and they are not making one anyway.

You must have finished up at the wrong link Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:05 PM

You must have posted the wrong one Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 01:15 PM

So, uh, Peter, your method to solve the problem would be what exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 04:17 PM

"As anonymous sources within the U.S. state department leak information Syria may be loading warheads with chemical weapons, sources in France have begun indicating that a Western strike against the Assad regime could begin very soon.

Although the chemical weapon agents had not yet been loaded into planes, the State Department source, quoted by NBC News, said that if they are "there's little the outside world can do to stop it."

French weekly Le Point is reporting that France is preparing a military response similar to that used against Libya. There is no ground assault or sustained air campaign planned, the magazine says, but several smaller raids that would target chemical weapon sites and take away President Bashar al-Assad's air superiority.

The timing of Syria's moves on their chemical weapons come as the situation is "accelerating" on the ground, with Assad's regime losing to the rebels."

More

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:27 PM

Sorry Keith, I did post the wrong one, or at least not the one I thought I'd posted, though reading it will have done you no harm.

Some contributor to an online debate included at that link goes some way to answering 999's question to me:

If I were a betting man, I'd wager this entire 'crisis' would disappear if the US and the other nations of the world demanded that Israel match Iran signature-for-signature on every nuclear control protocol and every inspection regime. Why hasn't this been done already? Why hasn't the issue of Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons been brought up each and every day in the UN and other international forums?

But my short answer to 999 is that I would have stayed out of Libya and Iraq and I would leave Syria for Putin to deal with, or not, as he thinks appropriate. I had no problem with Gadaffi, didn't like Saddam's indulgence of his mentally unhinged son Uday and don't care for what I've seen of the younger Assad. None of which gives me any entitlement to interfere, any more than I would advocate interfering with the obscene regime of (say) Lukashenko in Belarus.

We live in an unhappy world and have no magic wand to make it better.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: kendall
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:32 PM

What, and just mind our own business? Unheard of.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:43 PM

Thank you, Peter. However, I don't understand why Putin should be allowed to deal with Syria anymore than you understand why various other countries should not be allowed to deal with Syria. I suppose that's a sticking point.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Dec 12 - 08:50 PM

I'm with the Capt'n on this one...

We backed the Taliban against the Russians and look how that turned out...

What we have in the Middle East is a revolution... The folks who want a bigger say are like America's working poor... Educated, motivated, in tune with what's going down and not getting opportunities...

This is a global problem... Too many upper 1%ers glamming onto too much wealth... And too few folks with a lot to contribute workin' for nothin'...

Syria??? Egypt??? Libya??? The USA??? You pick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:32 PM

999, Russia would not be contemplating military intervention. It just happens to be a friend Assad might listen to. Maybe China too.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:40 PM

Thanks, Peter. I certainly hope so. They may be the only two 'powers' that could get through to Assad. Threats from all over won't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM

Bobad was one of the main cheerleaders here for the disgraceful shables in Libya.

To further the cause of "democracy and freedom" how fuckin' simplistic can this forum get?
Now that the disgraceful shables is patently obvious, people like bobad and Charley move on to the next "liberal" target......I dont think they even realise the damage they and their ilk do to the wonderful egalitarian, democratic and free Western way of life(irony).

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 04:59 PM

What is it with the love affair armchair socialists have with ruthless dictators?

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:02 PM

Lest I be misunderstood, the cauldron of hate and bloodshed which we have facilitated in the Middle East and North Africa will in all probability hasten the end of Western "culture" we know it.

So the "liberal" conservatives are actually revolutionaries....the biter, bit!

"The people is a beast of muddy brain."

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:11 PM

The "cauldron of hate and bloodshed in the Middle East and North Africa" is not in need of facilitation - it manages very well by itself, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:18 PM

We imagine that we can change these countries into "democratic" consumer societies in the hope of enslaving their people in the money trap......but these folks don't care about money any more than they care about life......checkmate!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Dec 12 - 05:23 PM

Without Western intervention, Libya would still be a relatively stable country.....as would Iraq.

The extremists now have the weapons and the power.....and what do they see as the greatest threat to their vision?

Western "Democracy"!

Subject: RE: BS: Syria: the new nightmare?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 12 - 10:21 AM

Bobad, what is it with the love affair US administrations have with ruthless dictators?