Sirija

[Gandalf]

Contradictio in adiecto.

nope.

[Roger Sanchez]

Nakon toliko stoljeća, Yarmouk je opet u bitkama i pred bitkama..http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lBxtF-tMUcg

[savindan]

Палеоконзервативац Пет Бјукенен поставља питање за милион долара, кој мој ће нам још један рат у који нас увлаче Ријад, Каиро и Анкара?

http://buchanan.org/...oes-to-war-5622A Reluctant Warrior Tiptoes to WarTuesday - June 18, 2013 at 1:11 amBy Patrick J. BuchananBarack Obama has just taken his first baby steps into a war in Syria that may define and destroy his presidency.Thursday, while he was ringing in Gay Pride Month with LGBT revelers, a staffer, Ben Rhodes, informed the White House press that U.S. weapons will be going to the Syrian rebels.For two years Obama has stayed out of this sectarian-civil war that has consumed 90,000 lives. Why is he going in now?The White House claims it now has proof Bashar Assad used sarin gas to kill 100-150 people, thus crossing a “red line” Obama had set down as a “game changer.” Defied, his credibility challenged, he had to do something.Yet Assad’s alleged use of sarin to justify U.S. intervention seems less like our reason for getting into this war than our excuse.For the White House decided to intervene weeks ago, before the use of sarin was confirmed. And why would Assad have used only tiny traces? Where is the photographic evidence of the disfigured dead?What proof have we the rebels did not fabricate the use of sarin or use it themselves to get the gullible Americans to fight their war?Yet, why would President Obama, whose proud boast is that he will have extricated us from the Afghan and Iraq wars, as Dwight Eisenhower did from the Korean War, plunge us into a new war?He has been under severe political and foreign pressure to do something after Assad and Hezbollah recaptured the strategic town of Qusair and began preparing to recapture Aleppo, the largest city.Should Assad succeed, it would mean a decisive defeat for the rebels and their backers: the Turks, Saudis and Qataris. And it would mean a geostrategic victory for Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, who have proven themselves reliable allies.To prevent this defeat and humiliation, we are now going to ship arms and ammunition to keep the rebels going and in control of enough territory to negotiate a peace that will remove Assad.We are going to make this a fair fight.What is wrong with this strategy? It is the policy of an amateur. It treats war like a game. It ignores the lessons of history. And, as it continues a bloodbath with no prospect of an end to it, it is immoral.In every great civil war of modernity — the Russian civil war of 1919-1921, the Spanish civil war of 1936-1939, the Chinese civil war of 1945-49, one side triumphs and takes power. The other loses and lives with the consequences — defeat, death, exile.What is the likely reaction to our escalation from humanitarian aid to military aid? Counter-escalation. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are likely to rush in more weapons and troops to accelerate the progress of Assad’s army before the American weapons arrive.And if they raise and call, what does Obama do?Already, a clamor is being heard from our clients in the Middle East and Congress to crater Syria’s runways with cruise missiles, to send heavy weapons to the rebels, to destroy Assad’s air force on the ground, to bomb his antiaircraft sites.All of these are acts of war. Yet under the Constitution, Congress alone authorizes war.When did Congress authorize Obama to take us to war in Syria? Where does our imperial president get his authority to draw red lines and attack countries that cross them?Have we ceased to be a republic? Has Congress become a mere spectator to presidential decisions on war and peace?As Vladimir Putin seems less the reluctant warrior, what do we do if Moscow answers the U.S. escalation by delivering on its contract to provide S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Damascus, which can cover half of Israel?Obama has put us on the escalator to a war already spilling over Syria’s borders into Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, a war that is now sundering the entire Middle East along Sunni and Shia lines.He is making us de facto allies of the Al-Qaida-like al-Nusra Front, of Hamas and jihadists from all across the region, and of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi just severed ties to Syria and is demanding a “no-fly zone,” which one imagines the United States, not the Egyptian air force, would have to enforce.Our elites shed tears over the 90,000 dead in Syria. But what we are about to do will not stop the killing, but simply lengthen the duration of the war and increase the numbers of dead and wounded.At the top of this escalator our country has begun to ascend is not just a proxy war with Iran in Syria, but a real war that would entail a disaster for the world economy.If the ouster of Assad is what the Sunni powers of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt demand, why not let them do it?Anti-interventionists should demand a roll-call vote in Congress on whether Obama has the authority to take us into this Syrian war.

Edited June 21, 2013 by savindan

[Bane5]

Neslavna brojka kojoj se kraj ne vidi.SOHR "dokumentovao" preko 100K zrtava rata.Njihove brojke su uvek bile za neki procenat nize od procena UN.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 100,191 casualties since the beginning of the uprisings in 18/3/2011, from the first casualty in Dera'a, up till 24/06/2013

.

[Prospero]

Brzezinski on the Syria CrisisEditor’s Note: Following is a TNI interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former White House national-security adviser under Jimmy Carter and now a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a senior research professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. The interview was conducted by Jacob Heilbrunn, TNI senior editor.Heilbrunn: Here we are five years into the Obama administration, and you’re stating that the West is engaging in “mass propaganda.” Is Obama being drawn into Syria because he’s too weak to resist the status quo? What happened to President Obama that brought us here?Brzezinski: I can’t engage either in psychoanalysis or any kind of historical revisionism. He obviously has a difficult problem on his hands, and there is a mysterious aspect to all of this. Just consider the timing. In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go—without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of 2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.Heilbrunn: Historically, we often have aided rebel movements—Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Angola, for example. If you’re a neocon or a liberal hawk, you’re going to say that this is actually aiding forces that are toppling a dictator. So what’s wrong with intervening on humanitarian grounds?Brzezinski: In principle there’s nothing wrong with that as motive. But I do think that one has to assess, in advance of the action, the risks involved. In Nicaragua the risks were relatively little given America’s dominant position in Central America and no significant rival’s access to it from the outside. In Afghanistan I think we knew that Pakistan might be a problem, but we had to do it because of 9/11. But speaking purely for myself, I did advise [then defense secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, when together with some others we were consulted about the decision to go into Afghanistan. My advice was: go in, knock out the Taliban and then leave. I think the problem with Syria is its potentially destabilizing and contagious effect—namely, the vulnerability of Jordan, of Lebanon, the possibility that Iraq will really become part of a larger Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict, and that there could be a grand collision between us and the Iranians. I think the stakes are larger and the situation is far less predictable and certainly not very susceptible to effective containment just to Syria by American power.Heilbrunn: Are we, in fact, witnessing a delayed chain reaction? The dream of the neoconservatives, when they entered Iraq, was to create a domino effect in the Middle East, in which we would topple one regime after the other. Is this, in fact, a macabre realization of that aspiration?Brzezinski: True, that might be the case. They hope that in a sense Syria would redeem what happened originally in Iraq. But I think what we have to bear in mind is that in this particular case the regional situation as a whole is more volatile than it was when they invaded Iraq, and perhaps their views are also infected by the notion, shared by some Israeli right-wingers, that Israel’s strategic prospects are best served if all of its adjoining neighbors are destabilized. I happen to think that is a long-term formula for disaster for Israel, because its byproduct, if it happens, is the elimination of American influence in the region, with Israel left ultimately on its own. I don’t think that’s good for Israel, and, to me, more importantly, because I look at the problems from the vantage point of American national interest, it’s not very good for us.Heilbrunn: You mentioned in an interview, I believe on MSNBC, the prospect of an international conference. Do you think that’s still a viable approach, that America should be pushing much more urgently to draw in China, Russia and other powers to reach some kind of peaceful end to this civil war?Brzezinski: I think if we tackle the issue alone with the Russians, which I think has to be done because they’re involved partially, and if we do it relying primarily on the former colonial powers in the region—France and Great Britain, who are really hated in the region—the chances of success are not as high as if we do engage in it, somehow, with China, India and Japan, which have a stake in a more stable Middle East. That relates in a way to the previous point you raised. Those countries perhaps can then cumulatively help to create a compromise in which, on the surface at least, no one will be a winner, but which might entail something that I’ve been proposing in different words for more than a year—namely, that there should be some sort of internationally sponsored elections in Syria, in which anyone who wishes to run can run, which in a way saves face for Assad but which might result in an arrangement, de facto, in which he serves out his term next year but doesn’t run again.Heilbrunn: How slippery is the slope? Obama was clearly not enthusiastic about sending the arms to the Syrian rebels—he handed the announcement off to Ben Rhodes. How slippery do you think this slope is? Do you think that we are headed towards greater American intervention?Brzezinski: I’m afraid that we’re headed toward an ineffective American intervention, which is even worse. There are circumstances in which intervention is not the best but also not the worst of all outcomes. But what you are talking about means increasing our aid to the least effective of the forces opposing Assad. So at best, it’s simply damaging to our credibility. At worst, it hastens the victory of groups that are much more hostile to us than Assad ever was. I still do not understand why—and that refers to my first answer—why we concluded somewhere back in 2011 or 2012—an election year, incidentally—that Assad should go.Heilbrunn: Your response earlier about Israel was quite fascinating. Do you think that if the region were to go up into greater upheaval, with a diminution of American influence, Israel would see an opportunity to consolidate its gains, or even make more radical ones if Jordan were to go up in flames?Brzezinski: Yes, I know what you’re driving at. I think in the short run, it would probably create a larger Fortress Israel, because there would be no one in the way, so to speak. But it would be, first of all, a bloodbath (in different ways for different people), with some significant casualties for Israel as well. But the right-wingers will feel that’s a necessity of survival.But in the long run, a hostile region like that cannot be policed, even by a nuclear-armed Israel. It will simply do to Israel what some of the wars have done to us on a smaller scale. Attrite it, tire it, fatigue it, demoralize it, cause emigration of the best and the first, and then some sort of cataclysm at the end which cannot be predicted at this stage because we don’t know who will have what by when. And after all, Iran is next door. It might have some nuclear capability. Suppose the Israelis knock it off. What about Pakistan and others? The notion that one can control a region from a very strong and motivated country, but of only six million people, is simply a wild dream.Heilbrunn: I guess my final question, if you think you can get into this subject, is . . . you’re sort of on the opposition bank right now. The dominant voice among intellectuals and in the media seems to be a liberal hawk/neoconservative groundswell, a moralistic call for action in Syria based on emotion. Why do you think, even after the debacle of the Iraq War, that the foreign-policy debate remains quite skewed in America?Brzezinski: (laughs) I think you know the answer to that better than I, but if I may offer a perspective: this is a highly motivated, good country. It is driven by good motives. But it is also a country with an extremely simplistic understanding of world affairs, and with still a high confidence in America’s capacity to prevail, by force if necessary. I think in a complex situation, simplistic solutions offered by people who are either demagogues, or are smart enough to offer their advice piecemeal; it’s something that people can bite into. Assuming that a few more arms of this or that kind will achieve what they really desire, which is a victory for a good cause, without fully understanding that the hidden complexities are going to suck us in more and more, we’re going to be involved in a large regional war eventually, with a region even more hostile to us than many Arabs are currently, it could be a disaster for us. But that is not a perspective that the average American, who doesn’t really read much about world affairs, can quite grasp. This is a country of good emotions, but poor knowledge and little sophistication about the world.Heilbrunn: Well, thank you. I couldn’t agree more.

[Lord Protector]

Ведомости: Русија повукла особље морнаричке базе у СиријиМОСКВА – Русија је повукла сво особље из своје морнаричке базе у Сирији, објавио је руски лист Ведомости.База у Тартусу је мали објекат, углавном коришћен за опслуживање руских ратних бродва у Медитерану, али и једина испостава руске морнарице ван територије некадашњег Совјетског савеза. Број особља те базе није познат.Ведомости, угледни економски дневни лист, известио је о евакуацији јуче, при чему се позивао на интервју са помоћником министра иностраних послова Михаила Боганова објављен у пан арапском Ал Хајату и на свој неименовани извор из Министарства одбране.Министарстрво одбране није дало коментар, а извештај није било могуће потврдити независно.Лист пише да је одлука донесена због ризика који за руско војно особље представља грађански рат у Сирији.

[Peter Fan]

Ведомости: Русија повукла особље морнаричке базе у СиријиМОСКВА – Русија је повукла сво особље из своје морнаричке базе у Сирији, објавио је руски лист Ведомости.База у Тартусу је мали објекат, углавном коришћен за опслуживање руских ратних бродва у Медитерану, али и једина испостава руске морнарице ван територије некадашњег Совјетског савеза. Број особља те базе није познат.Ведомости, угледни економски дневни лист, известио је о евакуацији јуче, при чему се позивао на интервју са помоћником министра иностраних послова Михаила Боганова објављен у пан арапском Ал Хајату и на свој неименовани извор из Министарства одбране.Министарстрво одбране није дало коментар, а извештај није било могуће потврдити независно.Лист пише да је одлука донесена због ризика који за руско војно особље представља грађански рат у Сирији.

To je vec demantovano.

[savindan]

Шта кажу форумски апологети Ријадове хуманитарне интервенције и борбе голоруког народа Сирије за демократију, јесу ли оно борци за слободу одрубили главу живом Митрополиту Антиохијске православне цркве или се и даље чека на потврду снимка?Дабовићу? Рођере? Има ли вас?

[Аврам Гојић]

probaj da makar prividno zauzdas radost zbog te male forumske pobede :)

[Bane5]

to nije ni forumska pobeda, vec nedopustivo uproscavanje stvari.tom logikom se sve moze svrstati u bas svaku kolonu samo da se hoce.npr. ja postavim snimak ubijenih (ili masakriranih) ljudi iz homsa, qusayra i sl. i onda napisem kako je 'savindan' apologeta brutalnog i bizarnog diktatorskog rezima koji vodi rat za svoj opstanak, ali ujedno i rat u ime irana ubijajuci hiljade nevinih.od rata u libiji su mnogi (koji tu i tamo i dalje izranjaju na topiku baveci se uglavnom forumasima, a ne bar pokusajem da necim doprinesu raspravi) sto gore pomenute sto neke druge etiketirali, a da nisu ni pomislili da crno-belo gledanje stvari radi protiv njih samih.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Bane5

[savindan]

@Дабовић et al, вас двојица сте малтене терали "нестручне" с топића, да вам га не погане својим ставовима. А скроз ате посустали с преношењем. Победа би била да није онако како јесте, да арод Сирије н чека систем владавине који ће бити надалеко гори од најгорих дана алавитског непотизма.@Бане5. ако је одсецање главе православног митрополита битна ставка побуњеничке платформе (по качењу снимка на нет бих рекао да шаљу поруку зиммилуку где им је место) онда ћу ја за самог себе рећи да сам апологета кућа ал-Асад. Између Техерана и Ријада бих сто пута одабрао оно прво - боље жене, већа толеранција за хришћане, боља храна, пријатнија клима и часнији људи. И теолошки су ми шиити ближи. Ето, натераћеш ме да качим Басиџ траку наставим ли да описујем аве тачке персијске супериорности :)

[Аврам Гојић]

kakve bljuvotine jebote

[Roger Sanchez]

Koga ti zajebavaš, savindane? Ti si bio obožavatelj kuće al-Assad od samog početka, ne moraš prijetiti da ćeš to postati.A što se tiče obožavanja basidža, nadam se da ćeš im se pridružiti i kad budu pomagali Europskom Teheranu oko nekih sitnica tipa đihada na RS.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Roger Sanchez

[nautilus]

pobunjenici su poprilicno sarolika ekipa. ima tu svega, od frikova koji sjeku glave pravoslavnim mitropolitima do sekularnih, urbanih, prozapadno oorjentisanih ljudi koji vise nisu mogli trpiti asadov zulum.to sto su se nasli na istoj strani govori sledece: oni pojedinacno vrlo slabi, asad je toliko veliko zlo da ih ujedinjuje.sa druge strane, hezbolah i iran su poznati kao primjeri vjerske tolerancije.

[Bane5]

@Бане5. ако је одсецање главе православног митрополита битна ставка побуњеничке платформе (по качењу снимка на нет бих рекао да шаљу поруку зиммилуку где им је место) онда ћу ја за самог себе рећи да сам апологета кућа ал-Асад. Између Техерана и Ријада бих сто пута одабрао оно прво - боље жене, већа толеранција за хришћане, боља храна, пријатнија клима и часнији људи. И теолошки су ми шиити ближи. Ето, натераћеш ме да качим Басиџ траку наставим ли да описујем аве тачке персијске супериорности :)

pa upravo sve radis kao sto sam i napisao. ti i dalje sve gledas kao da je sve crno i belo.na stranu sto ovakav odgovor ni ne zasluzuje neki normalan komentar. Edited June 30, 2013 by Bane5