Unfortunately we will Strike Syria.

We know; you and your covert, black-ops 'TEAM' are always alert in your patriotic quest and duty to your 'JOB'. Like the man said, 'give us a break'.

 

You're asking the US to 'think'? I admire your optimism, however misplaced! No, America would much sooner go in, 'kick ass', and fail as it always fails to achieve anything but tens of thousands of deaths.

 

If it is to emancipate millions,
then so be it.
We are in a constant struggle against oppression and inequalities,
and the fallen would be remembered as how they act fulfilling this most noble deed.

 

Ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis and anyone else invaded by America how they feel about these 'noble' deeds.

 

but you dont take orders. So who cares if you were asked to stand up.

russia has a naval base in Tartus, Syria; need more ships

What are you worried about then?

and then imagine if the syrians, did not use the chems in the first place. Would that be a reason for other countries to defend syria?

and still

 

There are 50 states in the US,
and none so far was added.
I could see no freedom under a communist state
similar to an authoritarian regime.
Unfortunately, Assad as I could see is no different.

 

I've been seeing references to this "Russian Naval Base" in Tartus just a bit too much. Do a little research, and find that the Russian presence there is almost non-existent. What they do have is a maintenance facility that often amounts to just one repair ship. That's why it was easy for them to evacuate, back when things began to heat up. Don't confuse images you've seen from Vladivostok with ideas about this base at Tartus.
What makes it more clear that we have designs against Iran is that they continue to establish more Naval bases that both threaten traffic through the straits of Hormuz, and facilitate China in moving their raw materials. Here's a little piece about the most recent developments there:
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Iran-inaugurates-new-naval-base-in-Strait-of-Hormuz
Here's another interesting take on that part of the world:
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2012/01/iranian-naval-assets-in-strait-of.html
It's a little bit funny to me that US assets are played down. Our 5th. fleet is based out of Bahrain, and we have assets that pretty much saturate the entire region.
Let us return again to the credibility of AA. He sees a bigger picture, where it looks very likely that there is a huge conflict in the making. Iran, Russia and China are the primary allies who would/will oppose us. It can only be considered extremely dangerous if they adapt the view that has been proposed here, of America being the bankrupt paper tiger, and take that as their cue to begin hostilities. I believe that it's only a matter of time before this actually happens.
The discussion has been about Syria. In the view of military analysts, Syria is but one tree in a forest where huge swaths of similar "trees" will fall. Consider that the toll in the coming conflict will be in the hundreds of Millions.
We want to forestall that conflict for as long as possible, and yet all sides are using this period of relative calm to prepare for it. America is torn about this Syria issue because it's the tiny vignette that we are shown, without knowing the details of the much bigger picture. The real object is indeed to foment smaller conflicts in the region as we try to maneuver events to make it apparent that our intervention is necessary in order to quell the general chaos. This plan requires that we demonize our opponents in the eyes of the American public to the point where there is general support for military action. If a chem. attack by Assad doesn't work, we reach back into our bag of tricks.

 

The highlighted section is definitely true, but we think about how to kick ass pretty thoroughly, more than most I'd say, and rarely consider blow back or fallout as long as the end result of action is what's intended. In fact, blow-back and fall-out is fine with us since it allows us to play with our toys in the sand for longer. Often, the end result intended is not what's stated publicly, especially in the cases of civilian casualties or "forming a true democracy." in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, we knew that a true democracy wouldn't bend to our will, so a destabilization that led to ongoing asymmetric & guerrilla tactics that "demanded" our continued military, intelligence, and diplomatic presence was the best we could hope for our long-term strategic objectives. I think, what you and Thehumankind are getting at isn't thinking, but considering our actions with a conscience that our leaders don't have, especially when we're expanding our empire.

I agree completely with your sentiment, but the US is better off in the oil department than just about any other nation and has the capacity to expand our extraction and refining capabilities to meet our needs while the rest of the world suffers from the effects of peak oil. That statement was made as a response to the idea that the US was in a soft oil war with China, which we are, in a sense, but not to bolster our reserves as much as to deplete their access. I think everyone would be better off developing alternatives, particularly China. The US is less likely to adjust due to its trucking industry and war machine (among other things,) plus we're just stubborn as hell as a people.

We haven't added a star to our flag in a while, but we've instigated civil wars, coups, rigged elections, as well as assassinated leaders, used the World Bank and IMF to hold their economies hostage to get votes in the UN and sell out their resources to our corporations, and propped up governments like Yemen, Pakistan, Columbia, Egypt, and so on until they expand to the point where they can no longer continue without our aid and become helpless dependents.

So we haven't absorbed other nations into ours but we have usurped them and forced governments to do what we want when it really matters to us. Assad is a megalomaniacal bastard, I have no doubt, but the US only cares about what he's doing to his people because they can inflate the ramifications to legitimize actions the further their larger geo-strategic goals.

 

Harper isn't a fan of Obama for the way Obama has treated Canada. I do not think he'd follow US orders. He doesn't even agree with arming the islamist rebels and he's getting closer in relations with China.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/0...ilors-visit-hawaii-for-rare-exercise-with-us/

PEARL HARBOR, HAWAII – Three Chinese ships with hundreds of sailors arrived in Hawaii on Friday for a rare visit to participate in a search-and-rescue exercise with the U.S. Navy.

Also last year Russia and US held joint military exercises.

 

Enjoy your war against Russia/China/Iran/NK and BRICS.. Most of your NATO allies have important relationships with those countries and aren't going to (*)(*)(*)(*) them up just to appease US and Israel thirst for world domination.

 

You were told to stand down?

 

Absolutely; and altruism is the last word which comes to mind when I hear the likes of Obama threatening military intervention, whilst simultaneously mouthing mawkish rhetoric about war crimes. Next stop, Tehran...

 

I'll grant you, the US does exercises with Russia and China occasionally, I was wrong. I hadn't read up on the topic as well as I should have before making that statement. That doesn't change it's strategic objectives though, and China holds no illusions about it.

this article from a Chinese publication in a perspective of Chinese naval and military leaders from last year is pretty telling, especially the excerpts below:

It's quite a long piece, but basically, the Chinese know they're screwed when it comes to naval situations, and that the ability to blockade Russia and China is the main focus of US naval positioning in the Pacific. They understand that the major strategic choke points in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf are under US control, and they're well situated to control choke points in South-East Asia. The also have the massive bases in Hawaii and Guam that can effcetively staunch any activity to China from the West or vice-versa.

That's why the US has been acting with so much force within regions that can provide over-land transport of resources to China and why they don't mind if Harper sells tar sands to them... Any ocean-going vessel headed to China can be blockaded by the US and allied navies.

 

You'll grant me? That's so kind of you. You know the guy who tries to come off as knowledgeable about geo politics and gets something very well known wrong, probably doesn't know about geo politics as much as he thinks. Good day.

 

Btw, try and blockade Chinese ships returning to China with Canadian oil. If you think we'll side with you then you are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy.

 

Unskewedewd, alpha fail to realize that these countries the US and Israel want to ruin are the allies of the US's allies. Canada, China are important allies now. Our economies are tied together and getting tighter by the year. And BRICS are becoming important now too. We aren't going to ruin our economies just so the US can play sea chess.

 

In post #66-
That may well be one of your idle thoughts on the matter, but the truth is that if Canada has any silly notions of playing stupid little political games that interfere with the US/China arrangement, Canada will learn Immediately that they have cut off their nose to spite their face.
If push comes to shove and the US feels threatened by a China/Canada alliance, Canada can only suffer.
Part of the reason why the US engages in sea exercises with China and Russia is so that those guys can see and understand our superiority, and their futility in any attempt to catch up. We already have 10 more carrier battle groups than either of them, with 3 more under construction. There's a lot of talk and saber rattling still, but in truth, any discussion about who calls the shots is entirely academic.

 

At least I can admit when I'm wrong. As I said before, I'm not into any kind of point-scoring argument. I'm not going to start now.

I'll try one more time to have a conversation with you.

Do you believe that Canada will eschew all of its combined history and strategic military cooperation as well as its NATO status, US economic ties including NAFTA, shared infrastructure, and all their ties to the UK for the sake of turning BRICS into BRICCS?

Why?

 

Above Alpha did mention a few weeks? ago that he was told to stand down from a secret, covert diplomatic ops to Syria. That part is recorded on this forum somewhere and not up for debate.

However, Above Alpha was put on hold before the deal between Russia, the USA, and Syria to turn over chemical weapons. Now, obviously, the military of the USA can put pressure on Assad to surrender his weapons.

Something that is worrisome, though, is what I just saw on the news: that chemical inspectors are heading back into Syria because of rumors that chemical weapons have been used again. If this turns out to be true it's the point of no return.

 

Canada opposed a lot of the US's stance during the cold war. Our government was friendly with Cuba even after the Cuban missile crisis. Recognized Communist China as a country. Publicly insulted US presidents.
Was a lot more friendly to the USSR after the Summit series in 1972. Was politically against the Vietnam war despite sending troops who voluntarily went over there. Among other things.

So go ahead. Make us pay. You'll find you have very little friends in this world by bullying Canada.

 

Lol if you think the UK, Australia & New Zealand would betray Canada and side with the US.

 

Are you sure you're not imposing your personal feelings about the US on other governments? Your views just don't seem to be supportable when you look at the relationships and history. What makes you think, first of all, that Canada values its relationship w/ BRICS over that of the US? That's the real question, because they don't. Your response/question is moot if they don't.

 

I think Obama doesn't really want to back up his meaningless 'red lines', that's why he talked about going to congress before the Russia deal gained traction. He knows that he has no support from the public for another military intervention in the middle east. I think the only way Obama would use military force, is if the Assad regime uses chemical weapons again. And, I don't think Assad is that dumb.

 

I hope you're right, but I doubt it.